Advertisement

European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 129, Issue 5, pp 909–919 | Cite as

Evaluation of forest management systems under risk of wildfire

  • Kari HyytiäinenEmail author
  • Robert G. Haight
Original Paper

Abstract

We evaluate the economic efficiency of even- and uneven-aged management systems under risk of wildfire. The management problems are formulated for a mixed-conifer stand and approximations of the optimal solutions are obtained using simulation optimization. The Northern Idaho variant of the Forest Vegetation Simulator and its Fire and Fuels Extension is used to predict stand growth and fire effects. Interest rate and fire risk are found to be critical determinants of the superior stand management system and timber supply. Uneven-aged management is superior with higher interest rates with or without fire risk. Alterations in the interest rate affect optimal stocking levels of uneven-aged stands, but have only minor effects on the long-run timber supply. Higher interest rates reduce rotation length and regeneration investments of even-aged stands, which lead to markedly reduced timber supply. Increasing fire risk increases the relative efficiency of even-aged management because a single age cohort is less susceptible to fire damage over the course of the rotation than multiple cohorts in uneven-aged stands. Higher fire risk reduces optimal diameter limit under uneven-aged management and decreases optimal rotation length and planting density under even-aged management.

Keywords

Even-aged management Fire risk Individual tree model Monte Carlo simulation Simulation optimization Uneven-aged management 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Stephanie Rebain, Olli Tahvonen, Lauri Valsta and the participants of the “Linking Forest Inventory and Optimisation”—conference for helpful comments and discussions. Mikko Kukkola is acknowledged for programing some of the model components needed in optimization. Kari Hyytiäinen thanks Kyösti Haatajan säätiö for research grant.

References

  1. Adams DM, Ek AR (1974) Optimizing the management of uneven-aged forest stands. Can J For Res 4:274–287Google Scholar
  2. Amacher GS, Malik AS, Haight RG (2005) Not getting burned: the importance of fire prevention in forest management. Land Econ 81:284–302Google Scholar
  3. Botkin DB (1993) Forest dynamics: an ecological model. Oxford University Press, 309 pGoogle Scholar
  4. Caulfield JP (1988) A stochastic efficiency approach for determining the economic rotation of a forest stand. For Sci 34:441–457Google Scholar
  5. Chang SJ (1981) Determination of the optimal growing stock and cutting cycle for an uneven-aged stand. For Sci 27:739–744Google Scholar
  6. Dixon GE (1989) Northern Idaho/Inland Empire (NI/IE) Variants Overview. Forest Vegetation Simulator. USDA, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 51 p. Revised version (February 2008)Google Scholar
  7. Dixon GE (2002) Essential FVS: a user’s guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 204 p. Revised version (January 2006)Google Scholar
  8. Englin J, Boxall P, Hauer G (2000) An empirical examination of optimal rotation in a multiple-use forest in the presence of fire risk. J Agr Res Econ 25:14–27Google Scholar
  9. Gassmann HI (1989) Optimal harvest of a forest in the presence of uncertainty. Can J For Res 19:1267–1274Google Scholar
  10. Goldsman D, Nelson BL (1998) Comparing systems via simulation. In: Banks J (ed) Handbook of simulation, vol 8. Wiley, New York, pp 273–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. González JR, Pukkala T, Palahí M (2005) Optimising the management of Pinus sylvestris L. stand under risk of fire in Catalonia (north-east of Spain). Ann For Sci 62:493–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graetz DH, Sessions J, Garman SL (2007) Using stand-level optimization to reduce crown fire hazard. Landsc Urban Plan 80:312–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haight RG (1985) A comparison of dynamic and static economic models of uneven-aged stand management. For Sci 31:957–974Google Scholar
  14. Haight RG (1987) Evaluating the efficiency of even-aged and uneven-aged stand management. For Sci 33:116–134Google Scholar
  15. Haight RG (1990) Feedback thinning policies for uneven-aged stand management with stochastic prices. For Sci 36:1015–1031Google Scholar
  16. Haight RG, Monserud RA (1990a) Optimizing any-aged management of mixed-species stands: I. Performance of a coordinate-search process. Can J For Res 20:15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haight RG, Monserud RA (1990b) Optimizing any-aged management of mixed-species stands: II. Effects of decision criteria. For Sci 36:125–144Google Scholar
  18. Hawley GJ, Schaberg PG, DeHayes DH, Brisette JC (2005) Silviculture alters the genetic structure of an eastern hemlock forest in Maine, USA. Can J For Res 35:143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hesseln H (2000) The economics of prescribed burning: a research review. For Sci 46:322–344Google Scholar
  20. Knoke T, Plusczyk N (2001) On economic consequences of transformation of a spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) dominated stand from regular into irregular age structure. For Ecol Manage 151:163–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martell DL (1980) The optimal rotation of a flammable forest stand. Can J For Res 10:30–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Monserud RA, Haight RG (1994) The economics of silvicultural systems: optimal management of cedar-hemlock white pine stands. In: Baumgartner DM, Lotan JE, Tonn JR (eds) Interior cedar-hemlock-white pine forests: ecology and management: symposium proceedings, 1993 March 2–4, Spokane, WA. Washington State University, Department of Natural Resources, Pullman, WA, pp 294–301Google Scholar
  23. O’Hara KL, Nagel LM (2006) A functional comparison of productivity in even-aged and multiaged stands: a synthesis for Pinus ponderosa. For Sci 52:290–303Google Scholar
  24. Reed WJ (1984) The effects of the risk of fire on the optimal rotation of a forest. J Env Econ Manage 11:180–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reed WJ (1987) Protecting a forest against fire: optimal protection patterns and harvest policies. Nat Resour Model 2:23–53Google Scholar
  26. Reed WJ, Apaloo J (1991) Evaluating the effects of risk on the economics of juvenile spacing and commercial thinning. Can J For Res 21:1390–1400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reed WJ, Errico D (1985) Assessing the long-run yield of a forest stand subject to the risk of fire. Can J For Res 15:680–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reinhardt E, Crookston NL (2003) The Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-116. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT, 209 pGoogle Scholar
  29. Routledge R (1980) The effect of potential catastrophic mortality and other unpredictable events on optimal forest rotation policy. For Sci 26:389–399Google Scholar
  30. Schulte BJ, Buongiorno J (1998) Effect of uneven-aged silviculture on the stand structure, species composition, and economic returns of loblolly pine stands. For Ecol Manage 111:83–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Valsta L (1992) A scenario approach to stochastic anticipatory optimization in stand management. For Sci 38:430–447Google Scholar
  32. Volin VC, Buongiorno J (1996) Effects of alternative management regimes on forest stand structure, species composition, and income: a model for the Italian Dolomites. For Ecol Manage 87:107–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wikström P (2000) A solution method for uneven-aged management applied to Norway spruce. For Sci 46:452–463Google Scholar
  34. Zhou W (1999) Risk-based selection of forest regeneration methods. For Ecol Manage 115:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© U.S. Government 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MTT Agrifood Research FinlandHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.USDA Forest Service, Northern Research StationSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations