The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd


  • P. A. Neher
Reference work entry


Traditional forestry economics has been chiefly concerned with wild or cultured forests as commercial, agricultural, enterprises. For these, net economic benefits stem from the harvested timber and the objective is to calculate the optimal pattern of harvesting over time. While there is a venerable literature on the standing, in situ, values of trees (see J. Nisbet’s entry in Palgrave (1912), Vol. II, pp. 113–18), these have been incorporated only recently in formal optimizing models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Cass, D., and K. Shell. 1976. The Hamilton approach to dynamic economics. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  2. Clark, C.W. 1976. Mathematical bioeconomics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Cropper, M.L. 1976. Regulating activities with catastrophic environmental effects. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 3: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Duerr, W.A., Fedkiw, J., and Guttenburg, S. 1956. Financial maturity. US Department of Agriculture. Technical Bulletin No. 1146.Google Scholar
  5. Faustmann, M. 1849. On the determination of the value which forest land and immature stands pose for forestry. English translation in Martin Faustmann and the evolution of discounted cash flow. ed. M. Gane. Oxford Institute Paper 42, 1968.Google Scholar
  6. Fisher, I. 1930. The theory of interest. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Gaffney, M.M. 1960. Concepts of financial maturity of timber and other assets, Agricultural economics information series, vol. 62. Raleigh: North Carolina State College.Google Scholar
  8. Gregory, G.R. 1972. Forest resource economics. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
  9. Halkin, H. 1966. A maximum principle of the Pontryagin type for systems described by non-linear difference equations. SIAM Journal on Control 4: 90–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hanzlik, E.J. 1922. Determination of the annual cut on a sustained basis for virgin American forests. Journal of Forestry 20: 611–625.Google Scholar
  11. Hartman, R. 1976. The harvesting decision when a standing forest has value. Economic Inquiry 16: 52–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heal, G. 1982. The use of common property resources. In Explorations in natural resource economics, ed. V.K. Smith and J.V. Krutilla. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  13. Heaps, T. 1981. The qualitative theory of optimal rotations. Canadian Journal of Economics 14: 686–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heaps, T., and P.A. Neher. 1979. The economics of forestry when the rate of harvest is constrained. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 6: 279–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hennes, L.C., Irving, M.J., and Navon, D.I. 1971. Forest control and regulation. USDA Forest Service Research Note PSW–231. Berkeley.Google Scholar
  16. Hotelling, H. 1925. A general mathematical theory of depreciation. Journal of the American Statistical Association 20: 340–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson, K.N., D.B. Jones, and B. Kent. 1980. A user’s guide to the forest planning model (FORPLAN). Ft. Collins: Land Management Planning, USDA Forest Service.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, K.N., and H.L. Scheurman. 1977. Techniques for prescribing optimal timber harvest and investment under different objectives, Forest science monographs, vol. 18. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters.Google Scholar
  19. Kao, C. 1984. Optimal stocking levels and rotation under uncertainty. Forest Science 30: 921–927.Google Scholar
  20. Kurz, M. 1968. Optimal economic growth and wealth effects. International Economic Review 9: 348–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ledyard, J., and L.N. Moses. 1976. Dynamics and land use: The case of forestry. In Public and urban economics, ed. R.E. Frieson. Lexington: D.C. Health.Google Scholar
  22. Lyon, K.S., and R.A. Sedjo. 1983. An optimal control theory model to estimate the regional long-term supply of timber. Forest Science 29: 798–812.Google Scholar
  23. Martell, D. 1980. The optimal rotation of a flammable forest stand. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 10: 30–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Navon, D.J. 1971. Timber RAM, USDA Forest Service Research Paper PNW–70. Berkeley: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experimental Station.Google Scholar
  25. Naudial, J.C., and P.H. Pearse. 1967. Optimizing the conversion to a sustained yield. Forest Science 13: 131–139.Google Scholar
  26. Neher, P.A. 1976. Democratic exploitation of a replenishable resource. Journal of Public Economics 5: 361–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Osmaston, F.C. 1968. The management of forests. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  28. Palgrave, R.H.I. (ed.). 1912. Dictionary of political economy, vol. II, 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Pearse, P.H. 1967. The optimum forest rotation. Forestry Chronicle 43: 178–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reed, W.J. 1984. The effect of risk of fire on the optimal rotation of a forest. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 11: 180–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reed, W.J., and D. Errico. 1985. Optimal harvest scheduling at the forest level in the presence of the risk of fire. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 15: 680–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Samuelson, P. 1976. Economics of forestry in an evolving society. Economic Inquiry 14: 466–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith, J.H.G. 1978. Management of Douglas-fir and other forest types in the Vancouver Public Sustained Yield Unit. In Forest management in Canada, vol. 11. Ottawa: Environment Canada.Google Scholar
  34. Von Thünen, J.H. 1826. The isolated state. Trans. and ed. Peter Hall. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. A. Neher
    • 1
  1. 1.