Abstract
New, cost efficient and voluntary biodiversity protection tools may require bidding price definition on part of the seller. Both the seller and the buyer can withdraw from negotiations if they find that the conditions of the protection contract are unacceptable. However, it can be very difficult for non-industrial, private landowners to define the bidding price demand for their biodiversity objects. The terms of the protection contract, the production possibilities of the forest holding, the forest owner’s multiple forest management goals and their substitutability, and the possible monetary subsidy paid for biodiversity protection should all be simultaneously taken into account when estimating the owner’s price demand for protecting the biodiversity object. This study strives to provide relief in resolving this problem by presenting an approach in which the landowner’s utility–loss compensative subsidy can be defined based on the owner’s forest-holding level utility function and the production possibilities of the holding. The properties of the approach are illustrated by four planning cases in which the length of the protection period (permanent or 20-year temporary protection) and the holding-level goals were varied. The utility functions of the cases were derived by selecting numeric goal variables for the goals, and by defining weights and sub-utility functions for these variables. Varying subsidies for protecting an old-growth spruce stand were included into the simulation of “No treatment” schedules for the examined stand, and the holding-level total utility was maximized for every price level. The utility–loss compensative subsidy was found when the holding-level total utility equaled the total utility achieved in the plan where the stand was regenerated. This subsidy, however, is not necessarily the exact price that the owner should ask from the buyer; all prices above the defined subsidy level will increase owner’s utility if the buyer accepts them. It was concluded that the presented approach provided consistent results in the four cases and that it thus offers valuable decision support for current biodiversity-protection programs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alho JM, Kolehmainen O, Leskinen P (2001) Regression methods for pairwise comparisons data. In: Schmoldt DL, Kangas J, Mendoza GA, Pesonen M (eds) The analytic hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision Making. managing forest ecosystems 3. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 235–251
Bettinger P, Graetz D, Boston K, Sessions J, Chung W (2002) Eight heuristic planning techniques applied to three increasingly difficult wildlife planning problems. Silva Fennica 36(2):561–584
Carlsson M, Andersson M, Dahlin B, Sallnäs O (1998) Spatial patterns of habitat protection in areas with non-industrial private forestry—hypotheses and implications. For Ecol Manage 107:203–211
Doremus H (2003) A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands. Environ Sci Policy 6:217–232
Dowsland KA (1993) Simulated annealing. In: Reeves CR (ed) Modern heuristic techniques for combinatorial problems. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 20–69
Dyer JS (1972) Interactive goal programming. Manage Sci 19(1):62–70
Etelä-Suomen, Oulun läänin länsiosan ja Lapin läänin lounaisosan metsien monimuotoisuuden turvaamisen toimintaohjelma (2002) Ympäristöministeriö. Suomen ympäristö 583 53 p. (In Finnish)
Etelä-Suomen metsien monimuotoisuusohjelman luonnonsuojelubiologiset kriteerit (2003). Ympäristöministeriö. Suomen ympäristö 634. 71 p. (In Finnish)
Forest Protection in Southern Finland and Ostrobotnia (2000). The Finnish Environment 437. 284 p. (In Finnish with English summary)
Frank G, Müller F (2003) Voluntary approaches in protection of forests in Austria. Environ Sci Policy 6:261–269
Fries C, Lindén G, Nillius E (1998) The stream model for ecological landscape planning in non-industrial private forestry. Scand J For Res 13:370–378
Hyvän metsänhoidon suositukset (2001). Metsätalouden kehittämiskeskus Tapio, Julkaisusarja 13/2001 Helsinki Finland. 95 p. (In Finnish)
Kangas J, Pukkala T, Pykäläinen J (1996) Vuorovaikutteinen heuristinen optimointi yksityismetsien suunnittelussa (In Finnish). Folia Forestalia 1996(3):231–244
Karppinen H (1998) Objectives of non-industrial private forest owners: differences and future trends in southern and northern Finland. J For Econ 4:147–173
Karppinen H, Hänninen H, Ripatti P (2002). Suomalainen metsänomistaja 2000. Finnish Forest Research Institute Research Notes 852. 83 p
Keeney RL (1982) Decision analysis: an overview. Oper Res 30(5):803–838
Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives. Preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Kirby KJ (2003) Woodland conservation in privately-owned cultural landscapes: the english experience. Environ Sci Policy 6:253–259
Knoke T, Moog M (2005) Timber harvesting versus forest reserves—producer prices for open-use areas in German beech forests (Fagus sylvatica L.). Ecol Econ 52:97–110
Korhonen P, Wallenius S, Moskowitz H (1990). Choice behavior in interactive multiple criteria decision making. Ann Oper Res 23:161–197
Kurttila M (2001) The spatial structure of forests in the optimization calculations of forest planning—a landscape ecological perspective. For Ecol Manage 142:127–140
Kurttila M, Pukkala T (2003) Combining holding-level economic goals with spatial landscape-level goals in the planning of multiple ownership forestry. Landsc Ecol 18(5):529–541
Kurttila M, Pukkala T, Loikkanen J (2002) The performance of alternative spatial objective types in forest planning calculations: a case for flying squirrel and moose. For Ecol Manage 166:245–260
Leskinen P (2001) Statistical methods for measuring preferences. Doctoral Thesis, University of Joensuu Finland. Publications in Social Sciences, vol 48
Leskinen P, Kangas J (1998) Modelling and simulation of timber prices for forest planning calculations. Scand J For Res 13:469–476
Leskinen P, Kangas J, Pasanen A.-M (2003) Assessing ecological values with dependent explanatory variables in multi-criteria forest ecosystem management. Ecol Model 170:1–12
Leskinen P, Viitanen J, Kangas A, Kangas J (2005) Alternatives to incorporate uncertainty and risk attitude in multi-criteria evaluation of forest plans (in press)
Lootsma FA (1993) Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. J Multi Criteria Decis Anal 2:87–110
Michael JA (2003) Efficient habitat protection with diverse landowners and fragmented landscapes. Environ Sci Policy 6:243–251
Parkhurst GM, Shogren JF, Bastian C, Kivi P, Donner J, Smith RBW (2002) Agglomeration bonus: an incentive mechanism to reunite fragmented habitat for biodiversity conservation. Ecol Econ 41:305–328
Pukkala T (2002a) Introduction to multi-objective forest planning. In: Pukkala T (ed) Multi-objective forest planning. managing forest ecosystems 6. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 1–20
Pukkala T (2002b) Measuring non-wood forest outputs in numerical forest planning. A review of Finnish research. In: Pukkala T (ed) Multi-objective forest planning, managing forest ecosystems 6. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 173–207
Pukkala T (2002c) Monsu metsäsuunnitteluohjelma. Ohjelmiston toiminta ja käyttö. (In Finnish)
Pukkala T, Kangas J (1993) A heuristic optimization method for forest planning and decision making. Scand J For Res 8:560–570
Pukkala T, Kangas J, Kniivilä M, Tiainen A-M (1997). Integrating forest-level and compartment-level indices of species diversity with numerical forest planning. Silva Fennica 31:417–429
Pykäläinen J (2000) Defining forest owner’s forest-management goals by means of a thematic interview in interactive forest planning. Silva Fennica 34(1):47–59
Pykäläinen J, Pukkala T, Kangas J (2001) Alternative priority models for forest planning on the landscape level involving multiple ownership. For Policy Econ 2:293–306
Reeves CR (ed) (1993) Modern heuristic techniques for combinatiorial problems. Wiley, New York
Steuer RE (1986) Multiple criteria optimization. Theory, computation and application. Wiley, New York
Acknowledgements
This study is supported by the Academy of Finland (decision number 210417).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Hans Pretzsch
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kurttila, M., Pykäläinen, J. & Leskinen, P. Defining the forest landowner’s utility–loss compensative subsidy level for a biodiversity object. Eur J Forest Res 125, 67–78 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-005-0079-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-005-0079-1