The Role of Private Management Investment in Long-Term Supply

  • Darius M. Adams
  • John R. Mills
  • Ralph J. Alig
Part of the Managing Forest Ecosystems book series (MAFE, volume 14)

The base case projection described in Chapter 9 envisions significant future expansion in private timber harvest based in part on growing investment in timber management, primarily in the South. Is this a reasonable expectation, and how important are these investment inputs in shaping the projected future? Historical data on management inputs are limited. Planting and plantation area data suggest a fairly clear trend of intensifying management on forest industry lands in the South and Pacific Northwest West. The picture is less clear for nonindustrial private owners, although in the South this group’s inventory and harvest have risen steadily since the late 1950s. Simulations examine the impact of alternative investment assumptions on the projections, considering both an extreme case of no future shifts in types or management intensity classes and a case freezing only plantation establishment in the South.


Cover Type Conservation Reserve Program Management Investment Forest Cover Type NIPF Owner 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams DM, Alig RJ, McCarl BA, Callaway JM, Winnett SM (1996) An analysis of the impacts of public timber harvest policies on private forest management in the U.S. Forest Sci 42(3):343-358Google Scholar
  2. Adams DM, Haynes RW, Dutrow GF, Barber RL, Vasievich JM (1982) Private investment in forest management and the long-term supply of timber. Am J Agr Econ 64(2):232-241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adams DM, Latta GS (2005) Costs and regional impacts of restoration thinning programs on the national forests in eastern Oregon. Can J Forest Res 35(6): 1319-1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alig RJ, Adams DM, Chmelik J, Bettinger P (1999) Private forest investment and long-run sustainable harvest volumes. New Forests 17:307-327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alig RJ, Butler B (2004) Area changes for forest cover types in the United States, 1952 to 1997, with projections to 2050. Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-613. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  6. Beach R, Pattanayak S, Yan J-C, Murray B, Abt R (2005) Econometric studies of nonindustrial private forest management a review and synthesis. Forest Policy Econ 7(2005):261-281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolkesjø T, Trombørg E, Solberg B (2005) Increasing forest conservation in Norway: consequences for timber and forest products markets. Environ Resour Econ 31:95-115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buongiorno J, Zhu S, Zhang D, Turner J, Tomberlin D (2003) The global forest products model: structure, estimation, and applications. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell S, Dunham P, Azuma D (2004) Timber resource statistics for Oregon. Resour Bull PNW-RRB-242. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  10. Gray A, Veneklase C, Rhoads R (2005) Timber resource statistics for nonnational forest land in western Washington, 2001. Resour Bull PNW-RRB-246. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  11. Haynes RW (tech coord) (2003) An analysis of the timber situation in the United States: 1952-2050. Gen Tech Rep PNW-GTR-560. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  12. Haynes RW, Adams DM, Mills JR (1995) The 1993 RPA timber assessment update. Gen Tech Rep RM-GTR-259. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, COGoogle Scholar
  13. Haynes RW, Adams DM, Mills JR (2003) Contemporary management regimes in the Pacific Northwest: balancing biophysical and economic concerns. Chapter 10. In: Monserud RA, Haynes RW, Johnson AC (eds) Compatible forest management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp267-296Google Scholar
  14. Kallio AMI, Moiseyev A, Solberg B (2004) The global forest sector model EFIGTM—the model structure. Internal Rep No. 15. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  15. Larson R, Goforth M (1974) TRAS: a timber volume projection model. USDA Tech Bull No. 1508. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  16. Sedjo R, Lyon K (1990) The long-term adequacy of world timber supply. Resources for the Future, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Wear D (1993) Private forest investment and softwood production in the U.S. South. Gen Tech Rep RM-GTR-237. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest Experiment Station, Fort Collins, COGoogle Scholar
  18. Wear D (1994) Measuring net investment and productivity in timber production. Forest Sci 40(1):192-208Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Darius M. Adams
    • 1
  • John R. Mills
    • 2
  • Ralph J. Alig
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Forest ResourcesOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.USDA Forest ServicePacific Northwest Research StationPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations