Effects of timber prices, ownership objectives, and owner characteristics on timber supply

Forest Science

Volumn 55, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 512-523

  Favada, Ibrahim M ^a   Karppinen, Heimo ^a   Kuuluvainen, Jari ^a   Mikkola, Jarmo ^b   Stavness, Corinne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

Author keywords

Harvesting decisions; Inverse hyperbolic sine tobit model; Landowner objectives; Nonindustrial private forestry; Small scale forestry

Indexed keywords

CONSISTENT ESTIMATION; DEPENDENT VARIABLES; EXPLANATORY VARIABLES; FINNISH; FOREST OWNERS; FOREST OWNERSHIP; HARVEST VOLUMES; HETEROSCEDASTICITY; K-MEANS CLUSTERING; MULTI OBJECTIVE; NON-INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE FORESTRY; NON-NORMALITY; SMALL-SCALE FORESTRY; STUMPAGE PRICES; SURVEY DATA; TIMBER PRICES; TIMBER SUPPLY;

COSTS; ESTIMATION; FLUORINE CONTAINING POLYMERS; HARVESTING; MULTIOBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; REFORESTATION; REVEGETATION;

TIMBER;

COSTS; ESTIMATION; FLUORINE; FORESTS; HARVESTING; MODELS; POLYMERS; REFORESTATION;

EID: 71749117515     PISSN: 0015749X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Amacher, G.S., M.C. Conway, and J. Sullivan. 2003. Econometric analyses of nonindustrial forest landowners: Is there anything left to study? J. For. Econ. 9(2):137-164.
2. andERBERG, M.R. 1973. Cluster analysis for applications. Academic Press, New York, NY. 358 p.
3. Arabmazar, A., and P. Schmidt. 1981. Further evidence on the robustness of the Tobit estimator to heteroscedasticity. J. Econometr. 17:253-258.
4. Arabmazar, A., and P. Schmidt. 1982. An investigation of the robustness of the Tobit estimator to non-normality. Econometrica 50:1055-1064.
5. Baltagi, B.H., and J.M. Griffin. 1984. Short and long run effects in pooled models. Int. Econ. Rev. 25(3):631-645.
6. Beach, R.H., S.K. Pattanayak, J-C. Yang, B.C. Murray, and R.C. Abt. 2005. Econometric studies of non-industrial private forest management: A review and synthesis. For. Pol. Econ. 7:261-281.
7. BINKLEY, C.S. 1981. Timber supply from private forests. Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Bull. No. 92. 97 p.
8. BINKLEY, C.S. 1987. When is the optimal economic rotation longer than the rotation of maximum sustained yield? J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 14:152-158.
9. BOLKESJØ, T.F., and S. Baardsen. 2002. Roundwood supply in Norway: Micro-level analysis of self-employed forest owners. For. Pol. Econ. 4:55-64.
10. BOLKESJØ, T.F., and B. Solberg. 2003. A panel data analysis of non-industrial private roundwood supply with emphasis on the price elasticity. For. Sci. 49(4):530-538.
11. BURBIDGE, J.B., L. MAGEE, and A.L. Robb. 1988. Alternative transformation to handle extreme values of the dependent vari- able. J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 83:23-127.
12. CALINSKI, T., and J. Harabasz. 1974. A dendrite method for cluster analysis. Commun. Statist. 3:1-27.
13. CARMINES, E.G., and R.A. Zeller. 1979. Reliability and validity assessment. Sage Univ. Paper Ser. on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 07-017. Sage, Newbury Park, CA. 71 p.
14. DENNIS, D.F. 1989. An economic analysis of harvest behavior: Integrating forest and ownership characteristics. For. Sci. 35(4):1088-1104.
15. ENGELMAN, L. 1980. Annotated computer output for BMDPKM K-means clustering. BMDP Tech. Rep. 71. BMDP Statistical Software, Department of Biomathematics, UCLA, Los Ange- les, CA. 46 p.
16. FAVADA, I.M., J. KUULUVAINEN, and J. Uusivuori. 2007. Consistent estimation of long-run non-industrial private forest owner timber supply using micro data. Can. J. For. Res. 37(8):1485-1494.
17. FINA, M., G.S. AMACHER, and J. Sullivan. 2001. Uncertainty, debt, and forest harvesting: Faustmann revisited. For. Sci. 47:188-196.
18. Hair, J.F., R. E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, and W.C. Black. 1998. Multivariate data analysis. 5th ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 730 p.
19. HARTIGAN, J. A. 1975. Clustering algorithms. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. 351 p.
20. HARTMAN, R. 1976. The harvesting decision when a standing forest has value. Econ. Inquiry 14:52-58.
21. HSIAO, C. 1989. Analysis of panel data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 246 p.
22. HYBERG, B.T., and D.M. Holthausen. 1989. The behaviour of non-industrial private landowners. Can. J. For. Res. 19:1014-1023.
23. KARPPINEN, H. 2000. Forest values and the objectives of ownership. Research Paper 757. Finnish Forest Research Institute. 50 p. app.
24. KARPPINEN, H., H. HÄNNINEN, and P. Ripatti. 2002. Suomalainen metsanomistaja 2000 [Finnish Forest Owner 2000]. Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedonantoja 852. 84 p.
25. KLINE, J.D., R.J. ALIG and R. L. JOHNSON. 2000. Fostering the production of non-timber services among forest owners with heterogeneous objectives. For. Sci. 46:302-311.
26. KUULUVAINEN, J., I. FAVADA, and J. Uusivuori. 2006. Empirical behaviour models of timber supply. P. 225-245 in The theory and practice of environmental and resource economics. Essays in honour of Karl-Gustaf Lofgren, Aronsson, T., R. Axelsson, and R. Brännlund (eds). Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
27. KUULUVAINEN, J., H. KARPPINEN, and V. Ovaskainen. 1996. Landowner objectives and non-industrial private timber supply. For. Sci. 42(3):300-309.
28. KUULUVAINEN, J., and J. Salo. 1991. Timber supply and life cycle harvest of nonindustrial private forest owners: An empirical analysis of the Finnish case. For. Sci. 37(4):1011-1029.
29. KUULUVAINEN, J., and O. Tahvonen. 1999. Testing the forest rotation model: Evidence from panel data. For. Sci. 45:539-551.
30. LEWIS-BECK, M.S. (ED.). 1994. Factor analysis and related techniques. Sage Publications, Toppan Publishing, London, UK. 424 p.
31. MACKINNON, J.G., and L. Magee. 1990. Transforming the dependent variable in regression models. Int. Econ. Rev. 31(2):315-339
32. MADDALA, G.S. 1983. Limited dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. 401 p.
33. MCDONALD, J., and R. Moffitt. 1980. The uses of Tobit analysis. Rev. Econ. Statist. 62:318-321.
34. MULAIK, S. 1972. The foundations of factor analysis. McGraw- Hill Book Company, New York, NY. 435 p.
35. NELSON, F.D. 1981. A test for misspecification in the censored normal model. Econometrica 49(5):1317-1329.
36. NÍ DHUBHÁIN, A., R. COBANOVA, H. KARPPINEN, D. MIZARAITE, E. RITTER, B. SLEE, and S. Wall. 2007. The values and objectives of private forest owners and their influence on forestry behaviour: The implications for entrepreneurship. Small-Scale For. 6(4):347-357.
37. PAGAN, A., and F. Vella. 1989. Diagnostic tests for models based on individual data: A survey. J. Appl. Econometr. 4 (Suppl.):29-59.
38. PATTANAYAK, S.K., B.C. MURRAY, and R.C. Abt. 2002. How joint is joint forest production? An econometric analysis of timber supply conditional on endogenous amenity values. For. Sci. 48:479-491.
39. PIROTTE, A. 1999. Convergence of the static estimation toward the long run effects of dynamic panel data models. Econ. Lett. 63:151-158.
40. PRESTEMON, J.P., and D.N. Wear. 2000. Linking harvest choices to timber supply. For. Sci. 46(3):377-389.
41. REYNOLDS, A., and J.S. Shonkwiler. 1991. Testing and correcting for distributional misspecifications in the Tobit model: An application of the information matrix test. Emp. Econ. 16:313-323.
42. SU, S.B., and S.T. Yen. 1996. Microeconometric models of infrequently purchased goods: An application to household pork consumption. Emp. Econ. 21:515-533.
43. TAHVONEN, O. 1998. Bequests, credit rationing and in situ values in the Faustmann-Pressler-Ohlin forestry model. Scand. J. Econ. 100(4):781-800.
44. TAHVONEN, O., and S. Salo. 1999. Optimal forest rotation with in situ preferences. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 37:106-128.
45. TOMPPO, E. 2006. The Finnish multi-source National Forest Inventory-Small area estimation and map production. P. 195-224 in Forest inventory: Methodology and applications. Managing forest ecosystems. Vol 10, Kangas, A., and M. Maltamo (eds.). Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
46. UUSIVUORI, J., and J. Kuuluvainen. 2008. Forest taxation in multiple-stand forestry with amenity preferences. Can. J. For. Res. 38:806-820.
47. VEHKALAHTI, K. 2000. Reliability of measurement scales. Tarkkonen's general method supersedes Cronbach's alpha. Stat. Res. Rep. 17. The Finnish Statistical Society, Helsinki, Finland.
48. WIERSUM, K.F., B.H.M. ELANDS, and M.A. HOOGSTRA. 2005. Small-scale forest ownership across Europe: Characteristics and future potential. Small-Scale For. Econ. Manag. Pol. 4(1):1-19.
49. YEN, S.T., S. LIU, and D.W. Kolpin. 1996. Analysis of nitrate in near-surface aquifers in the midcontinental United States: An application of the inverse hyperbolic sine Tobit model. Water Res. Res. 32:3003-3011.