Forest management after the economic transition-at the crossroads between German and Scandinavian traditions

Forest Policy and Economics

Volumn 11, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 586-592

  Brukas, Vilis ^a   Weber, Norbert ^b  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^b DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Comparative analysis; Forest management; Profitability; Stakeholders

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY; ECONOMIC TRANSITIONS; EU COUNTRIES; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FOREST SECTORS; GERMANY; LITHUANIA; REGIONAL GRADIENTS; SCANDINAVIA; STAKEHOLDERS;

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; FORESTRY; PROFITABILITY;

MANAGEMENT;

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; FOREST MANAGEMENT; FORESTRY; LATVIA; PROFITABILITY;

EID: 70349810681     PISSN: 13899341     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2009.08.009     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Alternativ 2008. Kontinuitetsskogsbruk för självverksamma. [Continuos cover forestry for the self-employed.] Debate on internet discussion forum alternativ.nu (Accessed on December 2, 2008).
2. Baumgarten M., and von Teuffel K. Nachhaltige Waldwirtschaft in Deutschland. In: von Teuffel K., Baumgarten M., Hanewinkel M., Konold W., Sauter U.H., Spiecker H., and von Wilpert K. (Eds). Waldumbau für eine Zukunftsorientierte Waldwirtschaft (2005), Springer, Berlin 1-10
3. BELV 2007. Bundeswaldinventur2. Alle Berichte. Hyperlink: http://www.bundeswaldinventur.de (accessed on November 6, 2007).
4. BELV (Bundesministerium fuer Ernaehrung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz) 2004. Die zweite Bundeswaldinventur-BWI. Das wichtigste in Kuerze.
5. Boman M., Norman J., Kindstrand C., and Mattsson L. On the budget for national environmental objectives and willingness to pay for protection of forest land. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38 (2008) 40-51
6. Bormann, K., 2004. Finanziell optimale Waldpflegeregime in der Baumart Kiefer. Diplom-thesis Tharandt, Technische Universität Dresden.
7. Bormann K., Küppers J.G., and Thoroe C. Zur ökonomischen Situation von Forstbetrieben in Deutschland. Bundesforschungsanstalt für Forst-und Holzwirtschaft, Arbeitsberericht, Institut für Ökonomie 2005/4. Hamburg (2005)
8. Brukas, V., 2000. Integrating environmental and socio-economic values into Lithuanian forestry. PhD thesis, KVL, Copenhagen.
9. Brukas V., Thorsen B.J., Helles F., and Tarp P. Discount rate and harvest policy: implications for Baltic forestry. Forest Policy and Economics 2 (2001) 143-156
10. CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) 2007. The world factbook 2007. Hyperlink: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ (accessed on August 9, 2007).
11. Ciancio O., and Nocentini S. Forest management from positivism to the culture of complexity. In: Agnoletti M., and Anderson S. (Eds). Methods and Approaches in Forest History (2000), CABI Publishing 47-58
12. Ekö P.M. Comparison of the economic potential of spruce and birch. In: Karlsson B. (Ed). Even-aged-stand system for Norway spruce vs. naturally regenerated birch-a comparative study. Redogörelse Nr. 4 (2006), Skogforsk, Gävle, Sweden 12-23
13. Enander, K.G. 2007. Skogsbruk på samhälles villkor. Skogsskötsel och skogspolitik under 150 år. [Forestry under society's conditions. Forest management and policy during 150 years]. SLU, Umeå.
14. Faustmann M. Berechnung des Werthes, welchen Waldboden, sowie noch nicht haubare Holzbestände für die Waldwirtschaft besitzen. Allgemeine Forst-und Jagd-Zeitung (1849) 441-455
15. Hanewinkel M., and Navarro G. Finanzielle Konsequenzen des Waldumbaus-Analyse mit Methoden der Investitionsrechnung. In: Teuffel K. (Ed). Waldumbau (2005), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York 248-260
16. Hofmann F., Kill J., Meder R., Plachter H., and Volz K.-R. Waldnutzung in Deutschland. Bestandsaufnahme, Handlungsbedarf und Maßnahmen zur Umsetzung des Leitbildes einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung (2000), Metzler-Poeschel, Stuttgart
17. Jasinevicius, G., 2008. Economic analysis of normative versus practical management of coniferous stands in Lithuania. MSc thesis, SLU, Alnarp, Sweden.
18. Klemperer W.D. Forest Resource Economics and Finance (1996), McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Mat
19. Klose, F., 1985. A brief history of the German forest-achievements and mistakes down to the ages. What lessons can be learned for forestry in developing countries? edited by GTZ.
20. Krott M. Forest Policy Analysis (2005), Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands
21. Lazdinis M., Carver A., Tonisson K., and Silamikele I. Innovative use of forest policy instruments in countries with economies in transition: experience of the Baltic States. Forest Policy and Economics 7 (2005) 527-537
22. Leonhardt J. Gemeinwohl als Verpflichtung für den Staatswald. In: Memmler M., and Ruppert C. (Eds). Dem Gemeinwohl verpflichtet? Perspektiven zu einem unbestimmten Leitbegriff für die Waldwirtschaft (2006), Oekom-Verlag 199-203
23. Linkevicius, E., 2007. Policy drivers behind the forest utilisation in Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. MSc thesis, SLU, Alnarp, Sweden.
24. LVM (Latvijas Valsts Mezi) 2007. Annual report 2006. Hyperlink: www.lvm.lv/files/text/LVM_GP_2oo6_gb.pdf (accessed on November 16, 2007).
25. Maciejewski W. The Baltic Sea region. Cultures, Politics, Societies (2002), Baltic University Press, Uppsala
26. MCPFE (Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe). 2007. State of Europe's forests 2007. MCPFE Liaison Unit Warsaw; UNECE; FAO.
27. Mikusinski G., and Angelstam P. Economic geography, forest distribution, and woodpecker diversity in central Europe. Conservation Biology 12 (1998) 200-208
28. Miles M.B., and Huberman M.A. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd ed (1994), Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA
29. Mohring B. The German struggle between the 'Bodenreinertragslehre' (land rent theory) and 'Waldreinertragslehre' (theory of the highest revenue) belongs to the past-but what is left?. Forest Policy and Economics 2 (2001) 195-201
30. Morkevicius A. What awaits the Lithuanian forest sector?. Baltijos Miskai ir Mediena 7 33 (2007) 12-15 (In Lithuanian)
31. Patton M.Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 3rd ed. (2001), Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA
32. Rametsteiner E. The attitude of European consumers towards forests and forestry. Unasylva 50 (1999) 42-48
33. Redko G.I., and Redko N.G. History of Russian Forestry (2002), Izdatelstvo MGUL, Moscow 457 pp. (In Russian)
34. Sallnäs O., and Nilsson U. Choice of tree species-how do we handle the risk of storm damage?. In: Karlsson B. (Ed). Even-aged-stand system for Norway spruce vs. naturally regenerated birch-a comparative study. Redogörelse Nr. 4 (2006), Skogforsk, Gävle, Sweden 30-36
35. Schanz H. Social Changes and Forestry. In: Pelkonen P., Pitkänen A., Schmidt P., Oesten G., Piussi P., and Rojas E. (Eds). Forestry in Changing Societies in Europe, Part 1 (1999), University of Joensuu 59-82
36. Schmidt U.E. Der Wald in Deutschland im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert (2002), Conte Verlag, Saarbrücken
37. State Forest Service. Forest Sector in Latvia (2006), Riga (in Latvian)
38. Weber N., Härdter U., Rother A., and Weishaupt M. Forstpolitische Aktivitäten von Umweltverbänden in Deutschland-eine vorläufige Bestandsaufnahme. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagdzeitung 171 8 (2000) 144-152
39. Wypij, K. 2008. Analysis of the drivers behind the forest utilization in Poland. Comparison of selected strategic issues in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania. MSc thesis, SLU, Alnarp, Sweden.