Forest rotations and stand interdependency: Ownership structure and timing of decisions

Natural Resource Modeling

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 1-43

  Amacher, Gregory S ^a   Koskela, Erkki ^b   Ollikainen, Markku ^b  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Amenity public goods; Forest rotation; Nonindustrial landowners; Stand interdependence

Indexed keywords

EID: 85046494027     PISSN: 08908575     EISSN: 19397445     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1939-7445.2004.tb00127.x     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. H. Albers [1996], Modeling Ecological Constraints on Tropical Forest Management: Spatial Interdependence, Irreversibility and Uncertainty, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 30, 73–94.
2. A. Ando, J. Camm, S. Polasky and A. Solow [1998], Species Distribution, Land Values and Efficient Conservation, Science 279, 2126–2128.
3. M. Beavers and J. Hof [1999], Spatially Optimizing Wildlife Habitat Edge Effects in Forest Management Linear and Mixed-Integer Programs, Forest Sci. 45, 249–258.
4. M. Beavers, J. Hof, B. Kent and M. Raphael [1995], Sustainable Forest Management for Optimizing Multispeces Wildlife Habitat: A Coastal Douglas-Fir Example, Natural Res. Modeling 1, 1–24.
5. C. Binkley [1981], Timber Supply from Private Nonindustrial Forests, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Bulletin No. 92, Yale University.
6. M. Bowes and J. Krutilla [1985], Multiple-Use Management of Public Forestlands, in Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics, Vol. II (A. Kneese and J. Sweeney, eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 531–569.
7. M. Bowes and J. Krutilla [1989], Multiple-Use Management: The Economics of Public Forests, Resources for Future, Washington, D.C, pp. 353.
8. M. Bowes, J. Krutilla and P. Sherman [1984], Forest Management for Increased Timber and Water Yields, Water Resources Research 20, 655–663.
9. R.G. Boyd and W.F. Hyde [1989], Forestry Sector Intervention, Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, Iowa.
10. J. Chipman [1977], An Empirical Implication of Auspitz-Lieben-Edgeworth-Pareto Complementarity, J. Econ. Theory 14, 228–231.
11. B. Csuti, et al. [1997], A Comparison of Reserve Selection Algorithms Using Data on Terrestrial Vertebrates in Oregon, Biological Conservation 80, 83–97.
12. A. Dixit [1986], Comparative Statics for Oligopoly, Inter. Econ. Review 27, 107–122.
13. J. Franklin and R. Forman [1987], Creating Landscape Patterns by Forest Cutting: Ecological Consequences and Principles, Landscape Ecol. 1, 5–18.
14. R. Giles [1978], Wildlife Management, Freeman Press, San Francisco.
15. R. Grumbine [1994], What Is Ecosystem Management ?, Conservation Biol. 8, 27–38.
16. R. Haight and L. Travis [1997], Wildlife Conservation Planning Using Stochastic Optimization and Importance Sampling, Forest Sci. 43, 129–139.
17. J. Hamilton and S. Slutsky [1990], Endogenous Timing in Duopoly Games, Games Econ. Behavior 2, 29–46.
18. I. Hanski [1998], Metapopulation Dynamics, Nature 396, 41–49.
19. R. Hartman [1976], The Harvesting Decision When a Standing Forest Has Value, Econ. Inquiry 14, 52–58.
20. J. Hof and M. Raphael [1993], Some Mathematical Programming Approaches for Optimizing Timber Age-Classes Distributions to Meet Multispecies Wildlife Population Objectives, Can. J. Forest Research 23, 828–834.
21. M. Jacobson [2002], Ecosystem Management in the United States: Interest of Forest Landowners in Joint Management Across Ownerships, Small Scale Forest Econ. Manage. Policy 1, 71–92.
22. Y. Kannai [1980], The ALEP Definition of Complementarity and Least Concave Utility Functions, J. Econ. Theory 22, 115–117.
23. R. Klosowski, T. Stevens, D. Kittredge and D. Dennis [2001], Economic Incentives for Coordinated Management of Forest Land: A Case Study of Southern New England, Forest Policy Econ. 2, 29–38.
24. E. Koskela and M. Ollikainen [2001a], Forest Taxation and Rotation Age under Private Amenity Valuation: New Results, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 42, 374–384.
25. E. Koskela and M. Ollikainen [2001b], Optimal Private and Public Harvesting under Spatial and Temporal Interdependence, Forest Sci. 47, 484–496.
26. E. Koskela and M. Ollikainen [2003], Optimal Forest Taxation under Private and Social Amenity Valuation, Forest Sci. 49, 596–607.
27. J. Kuuluvainen, H. Karppinen and V. Ovaskainen [1996], Landowner Objectives and Nonindustrial Private Timber Supply, Forest Sci. 42, 300–309.
28. C. Montgomery [1995], Economic Analysis of the Spatial Dimensions of Species Preservation: The Distribution of Northern Spotted Owl Habitat, Forest Sci. 41, 67–83.
29. M. Moote and H. Cortner [1994], Principles of Ecosystem Management, WRRC, Univ. of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.
30. S. Polasky, J. Camm and B. Garber-Yonts [2001], Selecting Biological Reserves Effectively: An Application to Terrestrial Vertebrate Conservation in Oregon, Land Econ. 77, 68–78.
31. A. Sample [1996], Sustainability in Forest Management: An Evolving Concept, Inter. Adv. Econ. Research 2, 165–173.
32. P. Samuelson [1974], Complementarity. An Essay on the 40th Anniversary of the Hicks-Allen Revolution in Demand Theory, J. Econ. Lit. 12, 1255–1289.
33. W. Strang [1983], On the Optimal Forest Harvesting Decision, Econ. Inquiry 21, 576–583.
34. S. Swallow, P. Talukdar and D. Wear [1997], Spatial and Temporal Specialization in Forest Ecosystem Management under Sole Ownership, Amer. J. Agri. Econ. 79, 311–326.
35. S. Swallow and D. Wear [1993], Spatial Interactions in Multiple-Use Forestry and Substitution and Wealth Effects for the Single Stand, J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 25, 103–120.
36. A. Takayama [1988], Mathematical Economics, 2nd ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
37. J. Tobin and H.S. Houthakker [1950, 1951], The Effects of Rationing on Demand Elasticities, Review of Econ. Stud. 18, 140–153.
38. C.E. Weber [2000], Two Further Empirical Implications of Auspitz-Lieben-Edgeworth-P areto Complementarity, Econ. Letters 67, 289–295.
39. X. Vives [1999], Oligopoly Pricing: Old Ideas and New Tools, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.