European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 133, Issue 4, pp 611–622 | Cite as

Economic assessment of use values of near-natural forestry compared with rotational forestry in Denmark

  • Dareskedar Workie AmsaluEmail author
  • Jette Bredahl Jacobsen
  • Thomas Hedemark Lundhede
Original Paper


The present study is a cost-benefit analysis of converting the current rotational forestry (RF) of Norway spruce stand into near-natural forestry (NNF) of beech, based on two representative soil conditions and visitors popular case areas in Denmark, considering welfare economic values of timber, recreation provision, and groundwater recharge. The study answers the major research question of how large the welfare economic values of recreation and groundwater benefits of the conversion are as compared with timber benefits. The net present values (NPV) of the benefits were calculated for an infinite time horizon at a 3 % discount rate. The results reveal that converting into NNF would result in a NPV of at least 6,832 € ha−1 from use values of recreation and water benefit on a site with good soil and a high visitor frequency, as is typical in the eastern part of Denmark. On a site in the west of the country, with poor growth conditions and a lower visitor frequency, the gain is still substantial, namely 5,581 € ha−1. These benefits though come at a cost of 3,375 and 6,206 € ha−1 from timber production, respectively. This means that the economic value of use values of recreation and water benefits outweighs the loss of timber on good soil conditions but not on poor soil conditions.


Cost-benefit analysis Near-natural forestry Recreation score Tree growth Run-off Water Conversion 



Jette Bredahl Jacobsen and Thomas Lundhede would like to thank the Danish National Research Foundation for supporting the research at the Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate.


  1. Boegh E, Poulsen RN, Butts M, Abrahamsen P, Dellwik E, Hansen S, Hasager CB, Ibrom A, Loerup J-K, Pilegaard K, Soegaard H (2009) Remote sensing based evapotranspiration and runoff modeling of agricultural, forest and urban flux sites in Denmark: from field to macro-scale. J Hydrol 377:300–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boman M, Jacobsen JB, Strange N, Norman J, Mattsson L (2010) Forest amenity values and the rotation age decision: a Nordic perspective. Ecol Bull 53:7–20Google Scholar
  3. Bostedt G, Mattsson L (2006) A note on benefits of adjusting forestry to meet recreational demands. J For Econ 12:75–81Google Scholar
  4. Campbell D, Suzanne E, Vedel SE, Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ (2012) Heterogeneity in the demand for recreational access–distributional aspects. Paper accepted for presentation at the EAERE conference in Prague, June 2012, p 19Google Scholar
  5. Dalsgaard L (2008) Transpiration and water budgets of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) dominated stands in relation to canopy structure. Forest and landscape Research No. 39-2008. Forest and landscape Denmark. FrederiksbergGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis LS, Johnson KN, Bettinger P, Howard TE (2001) Forest management: to sustain ecological, economic and social values, 4th edn. Waweland Press Inc., Illinois, p 804Google Scholar
  7. Duncker PH, Raulund-Rasmussen K, Gundersen P, Jong J, Katzensteiner K, Ravn HP, Smith M, Otto Eckmüllner O (2011) Synergies and trade-offs between production, land expectation value and ecological services like water, carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and soil fertility in relation to forest management. Ecol Soc ES-2011-4081Google Scholar
  8. Edwards D, Jay M, Jensen FS, Lucas B, Marzano M, Montagne C, Peace A, Weiss G (2010) Assessment of the recreational value of European forest management alternatives. EFORWOOD Report D2.3.6, Forest Research, UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanley N, Barbier EB (2009) Pricing nature: cost-benefit analysis and environmental policy-making. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  10. Hasler B, Lundhede T, Martinsen T, Neye S, Schou JS (2005) Valuation of groundwater protection versus water treatment in Denmark by choice experiments and contingent valuation. NERI Technical Report no. 543Google Scholar
  11. Jacobsen JB, Möhring B, Wippermann C (2004) Business economics of conversion and transformation—a case study of Norway spruce in Northern Germany. In: Spiecker H, Hansen J, Klimo E, Skovsgaard JP, Sterba H, von Teuffel K (eds) Norway spruce conversion-options and consequences. European Forest Institute Research Report 18. Brill Leiden, Boston, pp 225–252Google Scholar
  12. Jacobsen JB, Lundhede TH, Thorsen BJ (2012) Valuation of wildlife population above survival. Biodivers Conserv 21:543–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jensen FS (2003) Friluftslivi 592 skove og andre naturområder [Outdoor recreation in 592 forests and other natural areas]. Skovbrugsserien nr.32, Skov and Landskab, Hørsholm (in Danish)Google Scholar
  14. Jensen FS, Koch NE (2004) Twenty-five years of forest recreation research in Denmark and its influence on forest policy. Scand J For Res 19(4):93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katzensteiner K, Klimo E, Szukics U (2011) The impact of forest management on the water cycle of forest stands and watersheds. In: Raulund-Rasmussen K, Hansen K (eds) Synthesis report on impact of forest management on environmental services. EFORWOOD Deliverable D 2.2.2. Forest and landscape, University of Copenhagen, Denmark (UC), pp 55–72Google Scholar
  16. Larsen JB, Nielsen AB (2007) Nature-based—where are we going? Elaborating forest development type in and with practice. For Ecol Manag 238:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lindhagen A, Hörnsten L (2000) Forest recreation in 1977 and 1997 in Sweden: changes in public preferences and behaviour. Forestry 73:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. List JA, Gallet CA (2001) What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Evidence from a meta analysis. Environ Resour Econ 20:241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Loubier S (2003) Economic assessment of groundwater protection: a sensitivity analysis of costs-benefits results illustrated by a small aquifer protection in North Jutland region, Denmark. Case study report no.3 - BRGM/RC: 52326-FR. BRGM, OrléansGoogle Scholar
  20. Møller CM (1933) Boniteringstabeller og bonitetsvise tilvækstoversigter for Bøg, Eg Og Rødgran I Danmark [Site indexcurves for yieldtables for beech, oak and Norwayspruce in Denmark. Dansk Skovbrugs Tidsskrift 18:537–623 (in Danish)Google Scholar
  21. Nielsen AB, Olsen SB, Lundhede TH (2007) An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landsc Urb Plan 80:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nord-Larsen T, Bechsgaard A, Holm M, Holten-Andersen P (2003) Economic analysis of near-natural beech stand management in Northern Germany. For Ecol Manag 184:149–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Price C (1996) Contingent valuation and retrograde information bias. In: Park A, Stewart Roper C (eds) The living forest. Proceedings of the International Symposium on the non-market Benefits of Forestry, Edinburgh, June 1996, TSO, London, pp 37–44Google Scholar
  24. Price C, Price M (2008) Cost-benefit analysis of continuous cover forestry. In: Bergsend E, Delbeck G, Hoen HF (eds) Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the scandinavian society of forest economics Lom, Norway, 6th–9th April, 2008. Scand For Econ 42: 36–65Google Scholar
  25. Prokofieva I, Lucas B, Thorsen BJ, Carlsen K (2011) Monetary values of environmental and social externalities for the purpose of cost-benefit analysis in the EFORWOOD project. EFORWOOD Deliverable D1.5.6.CTFC, SpainGoogle Scholar
  26. Raulund-Rasmussen K (2012) Personal communication. Forest & Landscape, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 231958 Frederiksberg C, on 12 April, 2012Google Scholar
  27. Raulund-Rasmussen K, Hansen K, Katzensteiner K, Loustau D, de Jong J, Gundersen P, Humphrey JW, Ravn HP, Klimo E (2011) Introduction. In: Raulund-Rasmussen K, Hansen K (eds) Synthesis report on impact of forest management on environmental services. EFORWOOD Deliverable D2.2.2. Forest and Landsc, University of Copenhagen, Denmark (UC), pp 5–10Google Scholar
  28. Rune F (2009) Gribskov. Forlaget “Esrum Sø”, Fredensborg, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  29. Schou E, Jacobsen JB, Kristensen KL (2012) An economic evaluation of strategies of transforming even-aged into near-natural forestry in a conifers-dominated forest in Denmark. For Policy Econ 20:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Spiecker H, Hansen J, Klimo E, Skovsgaard JP, Sterba H, von Teuffel K (2004) Summarizing discussion. In: Spiecker H, Hansen J, Klimo E, Skovsgaard JP, Sterba H, von Teuffel K (eds) Norway spruce conversion-options and consequences. European Forest Institute Research Report 18. Brill Leiden, Boston, pp 252–260Google Scholar
  31. Tarp P, Helles F, Holten-Andersen P, Larsen JB, Strange N (2000) Modelling near-natural silvicultural regimes for beech—an economic sensitivity analysis. For Ecol Manag 130:187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vedel SE, Jacobsen JB, Boon TE (2010) Atlantic urbanized region. In: NEWFOREX (New Ways to Value and Market Forest Externalities). D2.1 A Report describing the role of key externalities across case studies. METLA (Finnish Forest Research Institute), pp 47–74Google Scholar
  33. Wobst H (2006) Combination of economics and ecological aspects by close to nature forestry—a contribution to the economic crisis of forestry. In: Diaci J (ed) Nature-based forestry in Central Europe: An alternative to industrial forestry and strict preservation. Studia Forestalia Slovenica 126. Department of Forestry and Renewable Forest Resources-Biotechnical Faculty, Ljubljana, pp 79–90Google Scholar
  34. Zandersen M, Termansen M, Jensen FS (2007) Evaluating approaches to predict recreation values of new forest sites. J For Econ 13:103–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dareskedar Workie Amsalu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jette Bredahl Jacobsen
    • 1
  • Thomas Hedemark Lundhede
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations