Advertisement

Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 75–91 | Cite as

Harvest Decisions and Spatial Landscape Attributes: The Case of Galician Communal Forests

  • Julia TouzaEmail author
  • Charles Perrings
  • María Luisa Chas Amil
Article

Abstract

In recent years, forest management has moved towards a landscape approach reflecting a mix of social, environmental and economic values. In this paper, we evaluate the effect on harvesting decisions of the spatial attributes of communal forests in Galicia. We first model the forest landscape management problem within a bioeconomic framework, which allows the identification of optimal clear-cutting strategies. This framework makes it possible to model a Faustmann-type rotation at the landscape level. The empirical analysis uses data from communal forests in Galicia, Spain. Under communal ownership, members of a rural community have rights to forest resources, but not rights to the forest itself. The management of communal forests integrates multiple forest uses within the decision making process. Given the communal nature of forest rights, and given these multiple uses, we show that landscape patterns—fragmentation, diversity and clumpiness—determine rotation periods.

Keywords

Bioeconomic model Faustmann–Hartman Non-timber benefits Multiple-stand forest Harvesting decisions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alvarez LHR, Koskela E (2003) On forest rotation under interest rate variability. Int Tax Public Finan 10(4): 489–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amacher GS, Conway MC, Sullivan J (2003) Econometric analyses of nonindustrial forest landowners: is there anything left to study?. J For Econ 9: 137–164Google Scholar
  3. Amacher GS, Koskela E, Ollikainen M (2004) Forest rotation under interdependent stands: ownership structure and timing of decisions. Nat Resour Model 17(1): 1–45Google Scholar
  4. Andersson FO, Fegerb KH, Hüttl RF, Kräuchid N, Mattssone L, Sallnäsf O, Sjöbergg K (2000) Forest ecosystem research and priorities for europe. For Ecol Manage 132(1): 111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asociación Forestal de Galicia (AFG) (2005) O monte galego segundo criterios de xestión forestal sostible. Santiago de CompostelaGoogle Scholar
  6. Balboa X (1990) O monte en Galicia. Santiago de Compostela, XeraisGoogle Scholar
  7. Baskent EZ, Yolasigmaz HA (1999) Forest landscape management revisited. Environ Manage 24(4): 437–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beach RH, Pattanayak SK, Yang JC, Murray BC, Abt RC (2005) Econometric studies of non-industrial private forest management a review and synthesis. For Policy Econ 7(3): 261–281Google Scholar
  9. Bermúdez JD, Touza MC (2000) Las cifras del tercer inventario forestal en Galicia y su incidencia en la industria de transformación de la madera. Rev CIS-Madera 4: 6–24Google Scholar
  10. Binkley CS (1981) Timber supply from private non-industrial forests. Bulletin 92, Yale UniversityGoogle Scholar
  11. Blumenthal A, Jannink J-L (2000) A classification of collaborative management methods. Conserv Ecol 4(2): 13Google Scholar
  12. Bolkesjœ TF, Solberg B, Wangen KR (2007) Heterogeneity in nonindustrial private roundwood supply: lessons from a large panel of forest owners. J For Econ 13: 7–28Google Scholar
  13. Botequilha-Leitao A, Ahern J (2002) Applying landscape ecology concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plan 59: 65–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bowes MD, Krutilla J (1985) Multiple use management of public forestlands.In: Kneese AV, Sweeney JL (eds) Handbook of natural resources and energy economics. North-Holland, Amsterdam, chapter 12, pp 531–569Google Scholar
  15. Chas M, Lorenzo M, Pérez J, Rodríguez D, Mesías A, Torres S, Burke J (2002) Task 3: Socioeconomía forestal. Contribución de la región Galicia. Santiago de Compostela: Eurosilvasur. Recite IIGoogle Scholar
  16. Consellería de Medio Ambiente (CMA) (2001) O monte galego en cifras. Xunta de Galicia, Santiago de CompostelaGoogle Scholar
  17. Cox DR, Oakes D (1984) Analysis of survival data. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Dennis DF (1989) An economic analysis of harvest behavior: integrating forest and ownership characteristics. For Sci 35(4): 1088–1104Google Scholar
  19. Dennis DF (1990) A probit analysis of the harvest decision using pooled time-series and cross-sectional data. J Environ Econ Manage 18: 176–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diario Oficial de Galicia (DOGA) (1989) Lei 13/1989, de 10 de outubro, de montes veciñais en man común. 20/10/1989Google Scholar
  21. Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza (DGCN) (2001) Tercer Inventario Forestal Nacional (1997–2006): Pontevedra. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, MadridGoogle Scholar
  22. Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza (DGCN) (2002) Spanish forest map, 1:50.000. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, MadridGoogle Scholar
  23. Ellefson PV, Cheng AS, Moulton RJ (1997) State forest practice regulatory programs: an approach to implementing ecosystem management on private forest lands in the United States. Environ Manage 21(3): 421–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fernández X (1990) Economía (política) do monte galego. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de CompostelaGoogle Scholar
  25. Franklin JF (1992) Scientific basis for new perspectives in forest and streams. See Naiman (1992), pp 3–14Google Scholar
  26. Greene WH (2002) Limdep 8.0. Econometric modeling guide, vols 1 and 2. Econometric SoftwareGoogle Scholar
  27. Greene WH (2003) Econometric analysis. 5 edn. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  28. Grupo de Estudio da Propiedade Comunal (GEPC) (2002) Panorámica actual dos montes de veciños en Galicia. Instituto Universitario de Estudios e Desenvolvemento de Galicia (IDEGA), Santiago de CompostelaGoogle Scholar
  29. Grupo de Estudio da Propiedade Comunal (GEPC) (2006) Os montes veciñais en man común. Xerais de Galicia, VigoGoogle Scholar
  30. Hammar H, Martinsson P (2001) The effect of cigarette prices and antismoking policies on the age of smoking initiation. Department of Economics, Göteborg University: working papers in economics, p 62Google Scholar
  31. Hartman R (1976) The harvesting decision when a standing forest has value. Econ Inq 14: 52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hyberg BT, Holthausen DM (1989) The behavior of non industrial private forest landowners. Can J For Res 19(8): 1014–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jamnick MS, Beckett DR (1988) A logit analysis of private woodlot owner’s harvesting decisions in New Brunswick. Can J For Res 18: 330–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koskela E, Ollikainen M, Pukkala T (2007) Biodiversity conservation in commercial boreal forestry: the optimal rotation age and retention tree volume. For Sci 53(3): 443–452Google Scholar
  35. Kuuluvainen J, Karppinen H, Ovaskainen V (1996) Landowner objectives and nonindustrial private timber supply. For Sci 42: 300–309Google Scholar
  36. Kuuluvainen J, Tahvonen O (1999) Testing the forest rotation model: evidence from panel data. For Sci 45(4): 539–549Google Scholar
  37. Lage JA (2001) La construcción social del bosque y la cultura forestal en Galicia. Servicio de Publicaciones da Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Doctoral dissertationGoogle Scholar
  38. Li H, Reynolds F (1993) A new contagion index to quantify spatial patterns of landscapes. Landsc Ecol 8(3): 155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marey M, Crecente R, Chas M, Lorenzo MC, Fra U (2002) Methodology for inventorying and characterising non-industrial private forestry. FIG XXII international congress. Washington, DC, USA, April, 19–26 2002Google Scholar
  40. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  41. Montgomery CA, Adams DM (1995) Optimal timber management policies. In: Handbook of environmental economics. Blackwell, Massachusetts, pp 379–404Google Scholar
  42. Naidoo R, Ricketts T (2006) Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation. PLoS Biol 4(11): 2153–2164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Naiman RJ (1992) Watershed management. Balancing sustainability and environmental change. Springer, New YokGoogle Scholar
  44. Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron D, Chan K, Daily G, Goldstein J, Kareiva P, Lonsdorf E, Naidoo R, Ricketts T, Shaw M (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7(1): 4–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nguyen D (1979) Environmental services and the optimum rotation problem in forest management. J Environ Manage 8: 127–136Google Scholar
  46. O’Neill RV, Krummel JR, Gardner RH, Sugihara G, Jackson B, DeAngelis DL, Milne BT, Turner MG, Zygmunt B, Christensen SW, Dale VH, Graham RL (1988) Indices of landscape pattern. Landsc Ecol 1(3): 153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Polasky S, Nelson E, Camm J, Csuti B, Fackler P, Lonsdorf E, Montgomery C, White D, Arthur J, Garber-Yonts B, Haight R, Kagan J, Starfield A, Tobalske C (2009) Where to put things? spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biol Conserv 141: 1505–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Polasky S, Nelson E, Lonsdorf E, Fackler P, Starfield A (2005) Conserving species in a working landscape: land use with biological and economic objectives. Ecol Appl 15: 1387–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sample AV (1994) Building partnerships for ecosystem management on mixed ownership landscapes. J For 92(8): 41–44Google Scholar
  50. Seierstad A, Sydsaeter K (1987) Optimal control theory with economic applications. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  51. Swallow SK, Talukdar P, Wear DN (1997) Spatial and temporal specialization in forest ecosystem management under sole ownership. Am J Agric Econ 79: 311–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tahvonen O (1998) Bequests, credit rationing and in situ values in the Faustmann-Pressler-Ohlin forestry model. Scand J Econ 100(4): 781–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tahvonen O (1999) Forest harvesting decisions: the economics of household forest owners in the presence of in situ benefits. Biodivers Conserv 8: 101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tahvonen O, Salo S (1999) Optimal forest rotation with in situ preferences. J Environ Econ Manage 37: 106–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Termansen M (2007) Economies of scale and the optimality of rotational dynamics in forestry. Environ Resour Econ 37(4): 643–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Touza J, Termansen M, Perrings C (2008) A bioeconomic approach to the Faustmann–Hartman rule: ecological interactions and even-aged forest management. Nat Resour Model 21(4): 551–581Google Scholar
  57. Turner MG (1989) Landscape ecology: the effects of pattern on process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20: 171–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Turner MG (1990) Spatial and temporal analysis of landscape patterns. Landsc Ecol 4(1): 21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Valdés CM, Gil L (2001) La transformación histórica del paisaje forestal en Galicia. Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, MadridGoogle Scholar
  60. Vence X, Rigueiro A, Díaz-Fierros F, Jordán M (1995) Estudio técnico-económico dos montes veciñais da comarca do Baixo-Miño e alternativas para o seu aproveitamento integral. Santiago de Compostela: Instituto Universitario de Estudios e Desenvolvemento de GaliciaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia Touza
    • 1
    Email author
  • Charles Perrings
    • 2
  • María Luisa Chas Amil
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Applied EconomicsUniversity of VigoVigoSpain
  2. 2.ecoSERVICES Group, School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  3. 3.Department of Quantitative EconomicsUniversity of Santiago de CompostelaSantiago de CompostelaSpain

Personalised recommendations