Evaluating forest management intensity: A comparison among major forest landowner types

Arano, Kathryn G.; Munn, Ian A.

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2005.07.011

Cited by 64 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The literature review focussed on understanding the harvesting behaviour of forest owners (Beach et al, 2005;Bolkesjo et al, 2007;Butler, 2006;Favada et al, 2009;Stordal et al, 2008;Vokoun et al, 2006;Adams et al, 1991;Araño and Munn, 2006), as well as on wood supply in more general terms (Sterba et al, 2000;Verkerk et al, 2011). Based on our review and data availability for the entire study área, 16 potential location factors influencing the likelihood of harvest were identified, as well as a priori assumptions with regards to the direction of influence of each location factor on harvesting likelihood (Table 1).…”

Section: Location Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping wood production in European forests

Verkerk

Levers

Kuemmerle

et al. 2015

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Location Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping wood production in European forests

Verkerk

Levers

Kuemmerle

et al. 2015

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, they tend to use much more quantitative approaches like economic analysis and regression techniques [135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142]. Critical reviews of the early studies did much to eliminate the reports of owner characteristics that lacked analysis and led to the more modern, quantitative NIPF studies [143].…”

Section: Classical Nipf Ownership Characteristics and Related Forest mentioning

confidence: 99%

Taxonomic Review of Classical and Current Literature on the Perennial American Family Forest Problem

Straka

2011

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:One of the fundamental issues in American forest policy has been the small forest ownership problem. Early in the twentieth century, it was called the farm forestry problem, later, the nonindustrial private forest problem, and today, the family forest problem. Family forest owners are thought to manage their lands in a suboptimal manner resulting in low forest productivity relative to other ownership groups. This can lead to future timber supply problems. The exact nature of the problem, especially its social and economic basis, was a common subject of early forestry research studies. This article includes many of the major nonindustrial private forest or family forest studies, from early to current, and classifies them both by themes used by other authors and categories that relate to major research areas in the current literature. A major focus of this literature deals with promoting management on family forest holdings and possible land management incentives and disincentives. Natural trends in family forest ownership, like parcelization, also impact upon forest management opportunities. By developing a taxonomy that classifies these studies by research objective, methodology, owner motivation, and problem definition, this article serves to organize the family forest literature in a manner that provides a temporal framework for better understanding the historical motivation for and development of family forest research in the United States.

show abstract

“…or money (Herzog et al 2006;Arano and Munn 2006). Theoretically, the output approach is more appropriate when comparing a single crop under different management regimes, whereas the input approach is preferred when key input factors exist across the landuses studied, for example fertilization (Dormann et al 2007; Kleijn et al 2009) or pesticide application (Geiger et al 2010;Gibbs et al 2009).…”

Section: Conceptual Approaches For Assessing Land-use Intensitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The management approach either directly quantifies the intensity of forest management operations in forest stands (Aguilar-Amuchastegui and Henebry 2007;Kueffer and Senn-Irlet 2005;Storaunet et al 2005;Uotila et al 2002;Sippola et al 2004;Zenner et al 2006;Arano and Munn 2006) or assesses the forest management regime applied in forest stands as a whole (Müller et al 2007a, b;Verwer et al 2008;Wulder et al 2007Duncker et al 2008Bell et al 2008). In contrast to the other two approaches, which Table 1 Overview of approaches characterizing forest management intensity grouped according to the main characteristics of land use (hemeroby/naturalness, disturbance, and management) and the address the effect or evidence of land use respectively, the management approach quantifies the intensity of management itself.…”

Section: Approaches For Assessing Forest Management Intensitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Others are based on factorial accuracy, using a metric scale of key management factors for a limited set of management practices (e.g. annual investment expenses (Arano and Munn 2006), harvest history based on tree number, basal area, or volume (Zenner et al 2006;Sippola et al 2004;Storaunet et al 2005;Uotila et al 2002;Aguilar-Amuchastegui and Henebry 2007) and time since the last silvicultural thinning or harvest operation (Kueffer and SennIrlet 2005)). However, there is no widely accepted concept on how to combine these diverse factors into a generally applicable, simple, yet accurate measure of forest management intensity.…”

Section: Approaches For Assessing Forest Management Intensitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How to quantify forest management intensity in Central European forests

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing approaches for the assessment of forest management intensity lack a widely accepted, purely quantitative measure for ranking a set of forest stands along a gradient of management intensity. We have developed a silvicultural management intensity indicator (SMI) which combines three main characteristics of a given stand: tree species, stand age and aboveground, living and dead wooden biomass. Data on these three factors are used as input to represent the risk of stand loss, which is a function of tree species and stand age, and stand density, which is a function of the silvicultural regime, stand age and tree species. Consequently, the indicator consists of a risk component (SMI r ) and a density component (SMI d ). We used SMI to rank traditional management of the main Central European tree species: Norway spruce (Picea abies [Karst.] L.), European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), and oak (Quercus robur L. and Quercus petraea L.). By analysing SMI over their whole rotation period, we found the following ranking of management intensity: oak\beech\pine(spruce. Additionally, we quantified the SMI of actual research plots of the German Biodiversity exploratories, which represent unmanaged and managed forest stands including conifer forests cultivated outside their natural range. SMI not only successfully separate managed from unmanaged forests, but also reflected the variability of forest management and stand properties across the entire sample and within the different management groups. We suggest using SMI to quantify silvicultual management intensity of stands differing in species composition, age, silvicultural system (even-aged vs. uneven-aged), thinning grade and stages of stand conversion from one stand type into another. Using SMI may facilitate the assessment of the impact of forest management intensity on biodiversity in temperate forests.

show abstract

Evaluating forest management intensity: A comparison among major forest landowner types

Cited by 64 publications

References 9 publications

Mapping wood production in European forests

Mapping wood production in European forests

Taxonomic Review of Classical and Current Literature on the Perennial American Family Forest Problem

How to quantify forest management intensity in Central European forests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About