Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:31:45.066Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk Management Behavior of a Forest Owner to Address Growth Risk

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Marielle Brunette  and
Stéphane Couture
Marielle Brunette
Affiliation:
INRA-Nancy in the Laboratory of Forest Economics
Stéphane Couture*
Affiliation:
INRA-Toulouse in the Unit of Applied Mathematics and Informatics of Toulouse
*
Corresponding Author: NRA-Toulouse, Unité de Mathématiques et Informatique Appliquées de Toulouse (MIAT), 24 Chemin de Borde Rouge–Auzeville CS 52627, 31326 Castanet Tolosan cedex, France, Phone +33(0)5.61.28.57.40, Email [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We analyze risk management behavior (financial savings versus physical savings) of a private forest owner who values amenities in relation to uncertainty about timber growth. In a two-period model, we study the properties of optimal current and future harvesting and risk management decisions. We show that the forest owner chooses the tool with the highest rate of return unless both risk management instruments are perfect substitutes. We prove that future harvesting is greater under physical savings than under financial savings. Comparative static results on amenity preferences, incomes, forest stocks, timber prices, and opportunity costs are investigated.

Keywords

amenitiesfinancial savingsforest managementgrowth riskharvesting decisionphysical savings
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , August 2013 , pp. 349 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amacher, G.S., Ollikainen, M., and Koskela, E. 2009. Economics of Forest Resources. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barua, S.K., Kuuluvainen, J., Laturi, J., and Uusivuori, J. 2010. “Effects of Forest Taxation and Amenity Preferences on Nonindustrial Private Forest Owners.” European Journal of Forest Research 129(2): 163–172.Google Scholar
Barua, S.K., Kuuluvainen, J., and Uusivuori, J. 2011. “Taxation, Life-time Uncertainty, and Non-industrial Private Forest-owner's Decision-making.” Journal of Forest Economics 17(3): 261–284.Google Scholar
Birch, T.W. 1994. Private Forest-land Owners of the Northern United States. Bulletin NE-136, Forest Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Brunette, M., and Couture, S. 2008. “Public Compensation for Windstorm Damage Reduces Incentives for Risk Management Investments.” Forest Policy and Economics 10(7/8): 491–499.Google Scholar
Butler, B.J., and Leatherberry, E.C. 2005. National Woodland Owner Survey: 2004 Preliminary Results. Forest Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at http://sowtheseedsfund.com/iatp/files/181_2_76304.pdf (accessed January 2009).Google Scholar
Cayatte, J.L. 2004. Introduction à l'économie de l'incertitude [Introduction to Economic Uncertainty]. Brussels, Belgium: Ouvertures Economiques [Economic Openings], de Boeck.Google Scholar
Commission of European Communities. 2006. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on an EU Forest Action Plan. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fore/action_plan/com_en.pdf (accessed January 2009).Google Scholar
Eeckhoudt, L., and Gollier, C. 1992. Les risques financiers: évaluation, gestion et partage [Financial Risks: Assessment, Management, and Sharing]. Paris: Ediscience international.Google Scholar
Englin, J., Boxall, P., and Hauer, G. 2000. ‘An Empirical Examination of Optimal Rotations in a Multiple Use Forest in the Presence of Fire Risk.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 25(1): 14–27.Google Scholar
Food and Agricultural Organization, United Nations. 2007. State of the World's Forests. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Hartman, R. 1976. “The Harvesting Decision When a Standing Forest Has Value.” Economic Inquiry 14(1): 52–58.Google Scholar
Koskela, E., and Ollikainen, M. 1997. “Optimal Design of Forest Taxation with Multiple-use Characteristics of Forest Stands.” Environmental and Resource Economics 10(1): 41–62.Google Scholar
Koskela, E., and Ollikainen, M. 1999. “Timber Supply, Amenity Values, and Biological Risk.” Journal of Forest Economics 5(2): 285–304.Google Scholar
Lindner, M., Lasch, P., and Erhard, M. 2000. “Alternative Forest Management Strategies under Climatic Change—Prospects for Gap Model Applications in Risk Analyses.” Silva Fennica 34(2): 101–111.Google Scholar
Max, W., and Lehman, D.E. 1988. “A Behavioral Model of Timber Supply.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15(1): 71–86.Google Scholar
Ovaskainen, V. 1992. “Forest Taxation, Timber Supply, and Economic Efficiency.” Acta Forestalia Fennica 233: 1–88.Google Scholar
Ovaskainen, V., Hänninen, H., Mikkola, J., and Lehtonen, E. 2006. “Cost-sharing and Private Timber Stand Improvements: A Two-step Estimation Approach.” Forest Science 52(1): 44–54.Google Scholar
Picard, O., Robert, N., and Toppan, E. 2002. Les systèmes d'assurance en forêt et les progrès possibles [Insurance Systems in the Forest and Possible Progress]. Report for the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries [Rapport pour le ministère de l'Agriculture et de la pêche], Paris.Google Scholar
Prestemon, J., Pye, J., and Holmes, T. 2000. “Timber Economics of Natural Catastrophes.” In Pelkki, M., ed., Proceedings of the 2000 Southern Forest Economics Workshop. Southern Forest Economics Workers (SOFEW), Mississippi State University.Google Scholar
Puech, J. 2009. Mise en valeur de la forêt française et développement de la filière bois [Development of French Forests and the Timber Industry]. Report submitted to Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy, President [Rapport remis à Monsieur Nicolas Sarkozy, président de la République].Google Scholar
Reynaud, A., Couture, S., Duruy, J., and Bergez, J-E. 2010. “Farmer's Risk Attitude: Reconciling Stated and Revealed Preference Approaches?” Selected paper presented at the Fourth World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economics, Montreal, Quebec.Google Scholar
Schelhaas, M.J., Nabuurs, G.J.L., and Schuck, A. 2003. “Natural Disturbances in European Forests in the 19th and 20th Centuries.” Global Change Biology 9(11): 1620–1633.Google Scholar
Spittlehouse, D.L., and Stewart, R.B. 2003. “Adaptation to Climate Change in Forest Management.” Journal of Ecosystems and Management 4(1): 1–11.Google Scholar
Størdal, S., Gudbrand, L., and Hardaker, J.B. 2007. “Perceived Risk Sources and Strategies to Cope with Risk among Forest Owners with and without Off-property Work in Eastern Norway.” Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 22(5): 443–453.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., Zhang, D., and Schelhaas, J. 2005. “Small-scale Non-industrial Private Forest Ownership in the United States: Rationale and Implications for Forest Management.” Silva Fennica 39(3): 443–454.Google Scholar