Economic Comparison of Continuous Cover and Rotation Forest Management in Temperate and Boreal Forest Zones in Northern Hemisphere

Comparing the economic performance of continuous cover forestry (CCF) in the broader context of uneven-aged management (UEA) and rotation forest management (RFM) representing conventional even-aged forest management (EA) has been a long-standing question in forest economics. In this review, we present a literature search of 134 scientific papers published between 1994 and June 2026, combining one keyword set related to economic terms and a second keyword set related to forest management. The search was restricted to temperate and boreal forests in the Northern hemisphere. Within the searched papers, different categories were identified according to their main focus, methodology, and the nature of their results. Of the 134 studies, 64 analyzed economic data covering the entire forest production cycle, but only 31 of them included relevant data to calculate an economic criterion for a correct comparison between CCF and RFM, by using net present value (NPV), or land expectation value (LEV). Regarding timber production, results show that neither CCF nor RFM is economically better overall. Advancements of one alternative over the other depend on site conditions, tree species, initial state of the forest, and interest rate. In contrast, studies have consistently proven that CCF is a better alternative for sustainability in a broader context as it decreases risks, mitigates climate change impacts, and provides non-productive ecosystem services.