Are 40 years better than 55? An analysis of the reduction of forest rotation to cope with drought events in a Douglas fir stand

  • Nathalie Bréda
  • Marielle BrunetteEmail author
Research Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Risk Analysis


Key message

Reduction of forest rotation is analyzed as a potential adaptation strategy for a Douglas fir stand to cope with drought-induced risk of forest decline. The methodology combines a water balance modeling and an economic approach. Results show that, from an economic perspective, adaptation (immediate or delayed) is always better than the absence of adaptation.


Reduction of rotation length emerges as a potential adaptation strategy to cope with climate change.


The study aims to address the reduction of rotation length to deal with the drought-induced risk of forest decline taking a multidisciplinary approach.


We estimate probabilities and impacts of drought events quantified by water balance modeling and we evaluate, from an economic point of view, the reduction of rotation length to cope with the drought-induced risk of forest decline. We compare three different adaptation strategies at the economic level: absence of adaptation, immediate adaptation, and delayed adaptation.


Results suggest that immediate reduction of rotation length is associated with the best economic return, followed by delayed adaptation and, finally, by the absence of adaptation. This result is sensitive to the level of timber loss in the event of drought occurrence. If the loss of timber volume is higher than 48%, then delayed adaptation may be preferable to immediate adaptation.


Beyond the specificities of the case study, this paper proposes a multidisciplinary approach to address adaptation strategies.


Adaptation Economics Climate change Water balance Risk of decline Pseudotsuga menziesii 



We thank Abdoulaye Sacko for the work performed during the training course of Master’s degree at the Laboratory of Forest Economics. We also thank Jean-Luc Peyron for his helpful comments.


The project was funded by the Mixed Technological Network for the Adaptation of Forest to Climatic Change (RMT AFORCE; The UMRs BETA and Forest Ecology and Ecophysiology are supported by a grant overseen by the French National Research Agency (ANR) as part of the “Investissements d’Avenir” program (ANR-11-LABX-0002-01; Lab of Excellence ARBRE).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Alvarez LHR (2004) Stochastic forest stand value and timber harvesting. SIAM J Control Optim 42:1972–1993. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez LHR, Koskela E (2003) On forest rotation under interest rate variability. Int Tax Public Financ 10(4):489–503. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarez LHR, Koskela E (2005) Wicksellian theory of forest rotation under interest rate variability. J Econ Dyn Control 29(3):529–545.
  4. Alvarez LHR, Koskela E (2006) Does risk aversion accelerates optimal forest rotation under uncertainty? J For Econ 12:171–184. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amacher GS, Malik AS, Haight RG (2005) Not getting burned: the importance of fire prevention in forest management. Land Econ 81(2):284–302. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amacher GS, Brazee RJ, Deegen P (2011) Faustmann continues to yield. J For Econ 17(3):231–234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Archaux F, Wolters V (2006) Impact of summer drought on forest biodiversity: what do we know? Ann For Sci 63(6):645–652. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aussenac G, Granier A (1988) Effects of thinning on water stress and growth in Douglas fir. Can J For Res 18:100–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Aussenac G, Granier A, Ibrahim M (1984) Influence du dessèchement du sol sur le fonctionnement hydrique et la croissance du Douglas (Pseudotsuga Menziesii (Mirb.) Franco). Acta Oecol 5:241–253Google Scholar
  10. Becker M, Lévy G (1988) A propos du dépérissement des forêts : climat, sylviculture et vitalité de la sapinière vosgienne. Rev For Fra 40:345–358. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blennow K, Persson J (2009) Climate change: motivation for taking measure to adapt. Glob Environ Chang 19:100–104. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blennow K, Persson J, Tomé M, Hanewinkel M (2012) Climate change: believing and seeing implies adapting. PLoS One 7(11):e50182. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Brazee RJ, Mendelsohn R (1988) Timber harvesting with fluctuating prices. For Sci 34(2):359–372. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bréda N, Badeau V (2008) Forest tree responses to extreme drought and some biotic events: towards a selection according to hazard tolerance? Compt Rendus Geosci 340:651–662. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bréda N, Peiffer M (2014) Vulnerability to forest decline in a context of climate changes: new prospects about an old question in forest ecology. Ann For Sci 71:627–631. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bréda N, Granier A, Huc R, Dreyer E (2006) Temperate forest trees and stands under severe drought: a review of ecophysiological responses, adaptation processes and long-term consequences. Ann For Sci 63:625–644. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bréda N, Bosc A, Badeau V (2011) Some aspects of climate change and forests in metropolitan France. In: Brisson N, Levrault F (eds) The Green book of the CLIMATOR project. Climate change, agriculture and forests in France: simulations of the impacts on the main species. ADEME, pp 225–236Google Scholar
  18. Brisson N, Levrault F (2011) Green book of the CLIMATOR project. Climate change, agriculture and forests in France: simulations of the impacts on the main species. ADEME Editions, March 2011, 334pGoogle Scholar
  19. Brukas V, Jellesmark Thorsen B, Helles F, Tarp P (2001) Discount rate and harvest policy: implications for Baltic forestry. Forest Policy Econ 2:143–156. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brunette M, Costa S, Lecocq F (2014) Economics of species change subject to risk of climate change and increasing information: a (quasi-)option value analysis. Ann For Sci 71(2):279–290. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Brunette M, Foncel J, Kéré E (2017) Attitude towards risk and production decision: an empirical analysis on French private forest owners. Environ Model Assess 22(6):563–576. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Calvet P, Lemoine B, Peyron JL (1997) Taux d’actualisation et conduite sylvicole des peuplements forestiers: un exemple dans le cas du pin maritime en France. Can J For Res 27:1268–1275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Chang FR (2005) On the elasticities of harvesting rules. J Econ Dyn Control 29:469–485. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chen PY, Welsh C, Hamann A (2010) Geographic variation in growth response of Douglas fir to interannual climate variability and projected climate change. Glob Chang Biol 16:3374–3385. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Clarke HR, Reed WJ (1989) The tree-cutting problem in a stochastic environment. J Econ Dyn Control 13:569–595. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Clarke HR, Reed WJ (1990) Harvest decisions and asset valuations for biological resources exhibiting size-dependent stochastic growth. Int Econ Rev 31:147–169. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Couture S, Reynaud A (2008) Multi-stand forest management under a climatic risk: do time and risk preferences matter? Environ Model Assess 13:181–193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. de Kort I, Baas P (1997) Ring width patterns of Douglas-fir in relation to crown vitality and age. IAWA J 18:53–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. de Vries W, Dobbertin MH, Solberg S, van Dobben HF, Schaub M (2014) Impacts of acid deposition, ozone exposure and weather conditions on forest ecosystems in Europe: an overview. Plant Soil 380:1–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Englin J, Boxall P, Hauer G (2000) An empirical examination of optimal rotations in a multiple-use forest in the presence of fire risk. J Agric Resour Econ 25:14–27Google Scholar
  31. Forston JC (1986) Factors affecting the discount rate for forestry investments. For Prod J 36(6):67–72Google Scholar
  32. Gosselin M, Costa S, Paillet Y, Chevalier H (2011) Actualisation en forêt: pour quelles raisons et à quel taux? Rev For Fra 63:445–455. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gottschalk KW (1995) Using silviculture to improve health in northeastern conifer and eastern hardwood forests. In: Eskew LG (compiler) Forest health through silviculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colo. General Technical Report RM-267: 219–226Google Scholar
  34. Granier A, Bréda N, Biron P, Villette S (1999) A lumped water balance model to evaluate duration and intensity of drought constraints in forest stands. Ecol Model 116:269–283. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haight RG, Smith WD, Straka TJ (1995) Hurricanes and the economics of loblolly pine plantations. For Sci 41:675–688. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hanewinkel M, Hummel S, Cullmann DA (2010) Modelling and economic evaluation of forest biome shifts under climate change in Southwest Germany. For Ecol Manag 259:710–719. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Insley M (2002) A real options approach to the valuation of a forestry investment. J Environ Econ Manag 44:471–492. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Insley MC, Rollins K (2005) On solving the multirotational timber harvesting problem with stochastic prices: a linear complementarity formulation. Am J Agric Econ 87:735–755. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. IPCC (2012) Summary for policymakers. In: Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner G-K, Allen SK, Tignor M, Midgley PM (eds) Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  40. IPCC (2014) IPCC SREX summary for policymakersGoogle Scholar
  41. Jönsson AM, Lagergren F, Smith B (2015) Forest management facing climate change—an ecosystem model analysis of adaptation strategies. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 20(2):201–220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kaipainen T, Liski J, Pussinen A, Karjalainen T (2004) Managing carbon sinks by changing rotation length in European forests. Environ Sci Pol 7:205–219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Keenan RJ (2012) Adaptation of forests and forest management to climate change: an editorial. Forests 3:75–82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kennedy MC, Ford ED, Hinckley TM (2009) Defining how aging Pseudotsuga and Abies compensate for multiple stresses through multi-criteria assessment of a functional-structural model. Tree Physiol 30:3–22. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Klemperer WD (1996) Forest resource economics and finance, McGraw-Hill Series in Forest Resources. McGraw-Hill, NewYork, 551pGoogle Scholar
  46. Klemperer WD, Cathcart JF, Haering T, Alig RJ (1994) Risk and the discount rate in forestry. Can J For Res 24(2):390–397. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kolström M, Lindner M, Vilén T, Maroschek M, Seidl R, Lexer MJ, Netherer S, Kremer A, Delzon S, Barbati A, Marchetti M, Corona P (2011) Reviewing the science and implementation of climate change adaptation measures in European forestry. Forests 2:961–982. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kuuluvainen T, Tahvonen O (1999) Testing the forest rotation model: evidence from panel data. For Sci 45(4):539–551. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lévesque M, Saurer M, Siegwolf R, Eilmann B, Brang P, Bugmann H, Rigling A (2013) Drought response of five conifer species under contrasting water availability suggests high vulnerability of Norway spruce and European larch. Glob Chang Biol 19:3184–3199. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Lindner M, Lasch P, Erhard M (2000) Alternative forest management strategies under climate change: prospects for gap model applications in risk analyses. Silva Fenn 34:101–111. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Liski J, Pussinen A, Pingoud K, Mäkipää R, Karjalainen T (2001) Which rotation length is favourable for carbon sequestration? Can J For Res 31:2004–2013. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Littell JS, Peterson DL, Tjoelker M (2008) Douglas-fir growth in mountain ecosystems: water limits tree growth from stand to region. Ecol Monogr 78:349–368. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Martell DL (1994) The impact of fire on timber supply in Ontario. For Chron 70:164–173. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McDowell N, Phillips N, Lunch C, Bond B, Ryan MG (2002) An investigation of hydraulic limitation and compensation in large old Douglas-fir trees. Tree Physiol 22:763–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Morel M, Terreaux JP (1995) L’estimation de la valeur des forêts à travers un exemple: entre simplification abusive et complexité du réel. Rev For Fra XLVII 2:151–161. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Najac J, Vidal JP, Martin E, Franchisteguy L, Soubeyroux JM (2010) Changes in drought characteristics in France during the 21st century. Geophys Res Abst 12:EGU2010–8975. HAL Id: hal-00506550Google Scholar
  57. Newman DH (2002) Forestry’s golden rule and the development of the optimal forest rotation literature. J For Econ 8:5–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nigh GD (2006) Impact of climate, moisture regime, and nutrient regime on the productivity of Douglas fir in coastal British Columbia, Canada. Clim Chang 76:321–337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pachauri RK, Allen MR, Barros VR, Broome J, Cramer W, Christ R, Church JA, Clarke L, Dahe Q, Dasgupta P (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCCGoogle Scholar
  60. Price C (2011) When and to what extent do risk premia work? Cases of threat and optimal rotation. J For Econ 17:53–66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rakotoarison H, Loisel P (2017) The Faustmann model under storm risk and price uncertainty: a case study of European beech in northwestern France. Forest Policy Econ 81:30–37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ranger J, Turpault MP (1999) Input-output nutrient budgets as a diagnostic tool for sustainable forest management. For Ecol Manag 122:139–154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Reed WJ (1984) The effects of the risk of fire on the optimal rotation of forest. J Environ Econ Manag 11(3):1980–1990. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schou E, Jacobsen JB, Kristensen KL (2012) An economic evaluation of strategies for transforming even-aged into near-natural forestry in a conifer-dominated forest in Denmark. Forest Policy Econ 20:89–98. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sergent AS, Bréda N, Rozenberg P (2012) Douglas-fir is vulnerable to exceptional and recurrent drought episodes and recovers less well on less fertile sites. Ann For Sci 71(6):697–708. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Snowdon P, Harou P (2014) Guide to economic appraisal of forestry investments and programmes in Europe. EFI Technical Report 94, Forestry CommissionGoogle Scholar
  67. Sousa-Silva R, Ponette Q, Verheyen K, Van Herzele A, Muys B (2016) Adaptation of forest management to climate change as perceived by forest owners and managers in Belgium. For Ecosyst 3:22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Spiecker H (2003) Silvicultural management in maintaining biodiversity and resistance of forests in Europe-temperate zone. J Environ Manag 67(1):55–65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Spittlehouse DL, Stewart RB (2003) Adaptation to climate change in forest management. J Ecosyst Manag 4:1–11Google Scholar
  70. Stollery KR (2005) Climate change and optimal rotation in a flammable forest. Nat Resour Model 18(1):91–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thomson TA (1992) Optimal forest rotation when stumpage prices follow a diffusion process. Land Econ 68(3):329–342. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Uusivuori J (2002) Non-constant risk attitudes and timber harvesting. For Sci 48:459–470. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Vitali V, Büntgen U, Bauhus J (2017) Silver fir and Douglas fir are more tolerant to extreme droughts than Norway spruce in south-western Germany. Glob Chang Biol 23(12):5108–5119. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Willassen Y (1998) The stochastic rotation problem: a generalization of Faustmann’s formula to stochastic forest growth. J Econ Dyn Control 22:573–596. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Woodruff DR, Meinzer FC, Lachenbruch B (2008) Height-related trends in leaf xylem anatomy and shoot hydraulic characteristics in a tall conifer: safety versus efficiency in water transport. New Phytol 180:90–99. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Yousefpour R, Hanewinkel M (2014) Balancing decisions for adaptive and multipurpose conversion of Norway spruce (Picea abies; L. karst) monocultures in the black forest area of Germany. For Sci 60(1):73–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yousefpour R, Hanewinkel M (2015) Forestry professionals’ perceptions of climate change, impacts and adaptation strategies for forests in south-west Germany. Clim Chang 130(2):273–286. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yousefpour R, Hanewinkel M, Le Moguédec G (2010) Evaluating the suitability of management strategies of pure Norway spruce forests in the black forest area of southwest Germany for adaptation to or mitigation of climate change. Environ Manag 45:387–402. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yousefpour R, Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ, Meilby H, Hanewinkel M, Oehler K (2012) A review of decision-making approaches to handle uncertainty and risk in adaptive forest management under climate change. Ann For Sci 69(1):1–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UMR 1137 INRA UL, Forest Ecology and Ecophysiology, INRAChampenouxFrance
  2. 2.Université de Lorraine, Université de Strasbourg, AgroParisTech, CNRS, INRA, BETANancyFrance

Personalised recommendations