IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v13y2011i3p155-158.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic impact of enlarging the area of protected forests in Estonia

Author

Listed:
  • Sirgmets, Risto
  • Kaimre, Paavo
  • Padari, Allar

Abstract

The article deals with the economic impact of increasing strictly protected forest areas from the current 8.2% level up to 10% from the total forest area in Estonia. Whereas there is no concrete selection of areas added in the group of strictly protected forests, the impact on annual lost income due to forest management not carried out in protected forests was assessed according to two different assumptions: 1. changing the status of forests without management restrictions (formal commercial forests) into the strictly protected ones; 2. changing the status of forests with management restrictions (formal protection forests) into the strictly protected ones. Achieving the target set by the Estonian Forest Development Programme, increasing the share of strictly protected forests up to 10%, an additional 39,000 ha of forest land will be out of management. Increasing the conservation area by 1.8% by forests without management restrictions, the reduction in potential net revenue will be 2% per year. Achieving the goal by conserving the forests with management restrictions, the total income will decrease by 0.76-1.9% per year. To realize the goal set by the Estonian Forestry Development Programme until 2010 and 2020 to enlarge the protected forest area up to 10% from one side, and the current economic recession on the other side, the economic solution could be enlarging the conservation on forests with management restrictions.

Suggested Citation

  • Sirgmets, Risto & Kaimre, Paavo & Padari, Allar, 2011. "Economic impact of enlarging the area of protected forests in Estonia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 155-158, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:13:y:2011:i:3:p:155-158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389-9341(10)00164-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kniivilä, Matleena & Ovaskainen, Ville & Saastamoinen, Olli & Kniivilä, Matleena, 2002. "Costs and benefits of forest conservation: regional and local comparisons in Eastern Finland," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 131-150.
    2. Torjus Bolkesjø & Erik Trømborg & Birger Solberg, 2005. "Increasing Forest Conservation in Norway: Consequences for Timber and Forest Products Markets," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 31(1), pages 95-115, May.
    3. Leppanen, Jussi & Linden, Mika & Uusivuori, Jussi & Pajuoja, Heikki, 2005. "The private cost and timber market implications of increasing strict forest conservation in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 71-83, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Põllumäe, Priit & Korjus, Henn & Paluots, Teele, 2014. "Management motives of Estonian private forest owners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 8-14.
    2. M. Kovalčík & Z. Sarvašová & M. Schwarz & M. Moravčík & M. Oravec & J. Lásková & J. Tutka, 2012. "Financial and socio-economic impacts of nature conservation on forestry in Slovakia," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 58(10), pages 425-435.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wilson, Jeffrey J. & Lantz, Van A. & MacLean, David A., 2010. "A benefit-cost analysis of establishing protected natural areas in New Brunswick, Canada," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 94-103, February.
    2. Kallio, A. Maarit I. & Hänninen, Riitta & Vainikainen, Nina & Luque, Sandra, 2008. "Biodiversity value and the optimal location of forest conservation sites in Southern Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 232-243, September.
    3. Rosenkranz, Lydia & Seintsch, Björn & Wippel, Bernd & Dieter, Matthias, 2014. "Income losses due to the implementation of the Habitats Directive in forests — Conclusions from a case study in Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 207-218.
    4. Geijer, Erik & Bostedt, Göran & Brännlund, Runar, 2011. "Damned if you do, damned if you do not--Reduced Climate Impact vs. Sustainable Forests in Sweden," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 94-106, January.
    5. Noraida, A.W. & Abdul-Rahim, A.S. & Othman, Mohd, 2017. "The Impact of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) Practices on Primary Timber-Based Production in Peninsular Malaysia," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 51(2), pages 143-154.
    6. Torjus Bolkesjø & Erik Trømborg & Birger Solberg, 2005. "Increasing Forest Conservation in Norway: Consequences for Timber and Forest Products Markets," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 31(1), pages 95-115, May.
    7. Aline Chiabai & Chiara Travisi & Anil Markandya & Helen Ding & Paulo Nunes, 2011. "Economic Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Services Losses: Cost of Policy Inaction," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 405-445, November.
    8. San Cristobal, Jose Ramon, 2007. "Effects on the economy of a decrease in forest resources: An international comparison," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(6), pages 647-652, February.
    9. Ding, Helen & Chiabai, Aline & Silvestri, Silvia & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D., 2016. "Valuing climate change impacts on European forest ecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 141-153.
    10. Barrio, Melina & Loureiro, Maria L., 2010. "A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1023-1030, March.
    11. Lindhjem, Henrik, 2007. "20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 251-277, February.
    12. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    13. Latta, Gregory S. & Sjølie, Hanne K. & Solberg, Birger, 2013. "A review of recent developments and applications of partial equilibrium models of the forest sector," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 350-360.
    14. Kärkkäinen, Leena & Haakana, Helena & Hirvelä, Hannu & Packalen, Tuula, 2019. "Using a decision support system to study impacts of land use policies on wood procurement possibilities of the sawmill industry – A case study at regional and municipal levels," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 136-146.
    15. Ovaskainen, Ville & Kniivila, Matleena, 2005. "Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(4), pages 1-16.
    16. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L. & Alló, Maria & Barrio, Melina, 2016. "Ecosystem Services and REDD: Estimating the Benefits of Non-Carbon Services in Worldwide Forests," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 246-261.
    17. Ville Ovaskainen & Matleena Kniivilä, 2005. "Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(4), pages 379-394, December.
    18. King, Carolyn, 2023. "The costs and benefits of conservation versus logging of old-growth native forest: A case history," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    19. Walker, Susan H. & Rideout, Douglas B. & Loomis, John B. & Reich, Robin, 2007. "Comparing the value of fuel treatment options in northern Colorado's urban and wildland-urban interface areas," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(6), pages 694-703, February.
    20. Koskela, Erkki & Ollikainen, Markku & Pukkala, Timo, 2007. "Biodiversity policies in commercial boreal forests: Optimal design of subsidy and tax combinations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 982-995, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:13:y:2011:i:3:p:155-158. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.