IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v85y2017ip2p235-244.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Owner mapping for forest scenario modelling — A Lithuanian case study

Author

Listed:
  • Mozgeris, Gintautas
  • Brukas, Vilis
  • Stanislovaitis, Andrius
  • Kavaliauskas, Marius
  • Palicinas, Michailas

Abstract

Ample research on private forest owners (PFOs) has established high heterogeneity in owners' objectives, motivations and management decisions. Such heterogeneity is, however, rarely taken into account in forest scenario modelling. This study, in contrast, conducts a detailed forest owner mapping that feeds into simulations of ecosystem services (ES) under alternative future scenarios. First, we identify four private forest owner types (FOT) – Forest Businessmen, Household Foresters, Passive Forest Lovers, and Ad Hoc Owners through in-depth interviews and qualitative analyses on a case study area in western Lithuania. Next, each forest estate and forest compartment is assigned a FOT by combining the property registry and forest characteristics with opinions of two types of local experts: state forest managers and inspectors from the State Forest Service. Third, a set of forest management (FM) programmes is specified using field interviews and desktop research, FM records, and expert judgement for each forest compartment. Finally, ES provision is projected using a behavioural matrix combining management styles of FOTs with details of FM programmes. We simulate the dynamics of profits from forestry activities, accumulated carbon in live biomass and tree species diversity under a reference scenario without substantial changes; and a policy intervention scenario. The study demonstrates that treating forest owners as a homogenous group overestimates profits from timber and underestimates the provision of the other analysed ES, potentially misinforming policy decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Mozgeris, Gintautas & Brukas, Vilis & Stanislovaitis, Andrius & Kavaliauskas, Marius & Palicinas, Michailas, 2017. "Owner mapping for forest scenario modelling — A Lithuanian case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P2), pages 235-244.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:85:y:2017:i:p2:p:235-244
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.02.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934116300132
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.02.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Joshi, Sudiksha & Arano, Kathryn G., 2009. "Determinants of private forest management decisions: A study on West Virginia NIPF landowners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 132-139, March.
    2. Beach, Robert H. & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Yang, Jui-Chen & Murray, Brian C. & Abt, Robert C., 2005. "Econometric studies of non-industrial private forest management: a review and synthesis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 261-281, March.
    3. Gregory, S. Amacher & Christine Conway, M. & Sullivan, Jay & Gregory, S. Amacher, 2003. "Econometric analyses of nonindustrial forest landowners: Is there anything left to study?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 137-164.
    4. Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Abt, Robert C. & Sommer, Allan J. & Cubbage, Fred & Murray, Brian C. & Yang, Jui-Chen & Wear, David & Ahn, SoEun, 2004. "Forest forecasts: does individual heterogeneity matter for market and landscape outcomes?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 243-260, June.
    5. Ficko, Andrej & Boncina, Andrej, 2013. "Probabilistic typology of management decision making in private forest properties," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 34-43.
    6. Musshoff, Oliver & Maart-Noelck, Syster Christin, 2014. "An experimental analysis of the behavior of forestry decision-makers — The example of timing in sales decisions," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 31-39.
    7. Urquhart, Julie & Courtney, Paul, 2011. "Seeing the owner behind the trees: A typology of small-scale private woodland owners in England," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(7), pages 535-544, September.
    8. Andersson, Mats & Gong, Peichen, 2010. "Risk preferences, risk perceptions and timber harvest decisions -- An empirical study of nonindustrial private forest owners in northern Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 330-339, June.
    9. Vilis Brukas & Andrius Kuliešis & Ola Sallnäs & Edgaras Linkevičius, 2011. "Resource availability, planning rigidity and Realpolitik in Lithuanian forest utilization," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 35, pages 77-88, May.
    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. Makrickiene, Ekaterina & Brukas, Vilis & Brodrechtova, Yvonne & Mozgeris, Gintautas & Sedmák, Róbert & Šálka, Jaroslav, 2019. "From command-and-control to good forest governance: A critical interpretive analysis of Lithuania and Slovakia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    2. Gintautas Mozgeris & Vaiva Kazanavičiūtė & Daiva Juknelienė, 2021. "Does Aiming for Long-Term Non-Decreasing Flow of Timber Secure Carbon Accumulation: A Lithuanian Forestry Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-24, March.
    3. Lodin, Isak & Brukas, Vilis, 2021. "Ideal vs real forest management: Challenges in promoting production-oriented silvicultural ideals among small-scale forest owners in southern Sweden," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    4. Mozgeris, Gintautas & Kavaliauskas, Marius & Brukas, Vilis & Stanislovaitis, Andrius, 2019. "Assessment of timber supply under alternative contextual scenarios," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 36-44.

    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. Sotirov, Metodi & Sallnäs, Ola & Eriksson, Ljusk Ola, 2019. "Forest owner behavioral models, policy changes, and forest management. An agent-based framework for studying the provision of forest ecosystem goods and services at the landscape level," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 79-89.
    2. Petucco, Claudio & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2015. "Influences of nonindustrial private forest landowners’ management priorities on the timber harvest decision—A case study in France," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 152-166.
    3. Andersson, Mats, 2012. "Assessing non-industrial private forest owners’ attitudes to risk: Do owner and property characteristics matter?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 3-13.
    4. Ficko, Andrej & Boncina, Andrej, 2013. "Probabilistic typology of management decision making in private forest properties," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 34-43.
    5. Josset, Clement & Shanafelt, David W. & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Probabilistic typology of private forest owners: A tool to target the development of new market for ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    6. Nielsen, Anne Sofie Elberg & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Strange, Niels, 2018. "Landowner participation in forest conservation programs: A revealed approach using register, spatial and contract data," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 1-12.
    7. Cai, Zhen & Narine, Lana Landra & D'Amato, Anthony & Aguilar, Francisco Xavier, 2016. "Attitudinal and revenue effects on non-industrial private forest owners' willingness-to-harvest timber and woody biomass," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 52-61.
    8. Kilham, Philipp & Hartebrodt, Christoph & Schraml, Ulrich, 2019. "A conceptual model for private forest owners' harvest decisions: A qualitative study in southwest Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Gutierrez-Castillo, Ana & Penn, Jerrod & Tanger, Shaun & Blazier, Michael A., 2022. "Conservation easement landowners' willingness to accept for forest thinning and the impact of information," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    10. Fischer, A. Paige, 2012. "Identifying policy target groups with qualitative and quantitative methods: The case of wildfire risk on nonindustrial private forest lands," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 62-71.
    11. G.C., Shivan & Mehmood, Sayeed R., 2012. "Determinants of nonindustrial private forest landowner willingness to accept price offers for woody biomass," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 47-55.
    12. Huff, Emily S. & Floress, Kristin & Snyder, Stephanie A. & Ma, Zhao & Butler, Sarah, 2019. "Where farm and forest meet: Comparing National Woodland Owner Survey respondents with and without farmland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    13. Khanal, Puskar N. & Grebner, Donald L. & Munn, Ian A. & Grado, Stephen C. & Grala, Robert K. & Henderson, James E., 2017. "Evaluating non-industrial private forest landowner willingness to manage for forest carbon sequestration in the southern United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 112-119.
    14. Watson, Adam C. & Sullivan, Jay & Amacher, Gregory S. & Asaro, Christopher, 2013. "Cost sharing for pre-commercial thinning in southern pine plantations: Willingness to participate in Virginia's pine bark beetle prevention program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 65-72.
    15. Sauter, Philipp A. & Mußhoff, Oliver & Möhring, Bernhard & Wilhelm, Stefan, 2016. "Faustmann vs. real options theory – An experimental investigation of foresters’ harvesting decisions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 1-20.
    16. Karppinen, Heimo & Berghäll, Sami, 2015. "Forest owners' stand improvement decisions: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 275-284.
    17. Gutierrez, Ana L. & Penn, Jerrod & Tanger, Shaun & Blazier, Michael, 2020. "Conservation Easement Landowners’ WTA Compensation to Thin their Forest," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304551, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Pancholy, Nishita & Thomas, Michael H. & Solís, Daniel & Stratis, Nicholas, 2011. "The impact of biofuels on the propensity of land-use conversion among non-industrial private forest landowners in Florida," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(7), pages 570-574, September.
    19. Julia Touza & Charles Perrings & María Chas Amil, 2010. "Harvest Decisions and Spatial Landscape Attributes: The Case of Galician Communal Forests," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 75-91, May.
    20. Fortney, Jennifer & Arano, Kathryn G. & Jacobson, Michael, 2011. "An evaluation of West Virginia's Managed Timberland Tax Incentive Program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 69-78, January.

    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:85:y:2017:i:p2:p:235-244. 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.