2005
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfe.2005.05.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A mill-specific roundwood demand equation for southern and central Finland

Abstract: The majority of the roundwood processed by the highly concentrated forest products industry in Finland is supplied by non-industrial private forest owners (NIPF). The industry's heavy reliance on NIPF roundwood supplies and the NIPF owners' high dependency on the industry for revenue motivated this study of the spatial fibre flows in regional markets. To describe the direction and magnitude of these regional fibre flows we estimate a mill-specific timber demand equation. This empirical model of roundwood deman… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 30 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, although we found a win-win situation (financial incentives for both participants, private forest owner and contractor), for conducting a FCT the ultimate decision is vitally dependent on the market situation: is there enough demand for roundwood at the regional level [69] and, evidently, at a global scale [70]? Further, integration of roundwood markets between countries (namely, Sweden and Finland) might generate a boost to local timber supply, as well [71].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…Finally, although we found a win-win situation (financial incentives for both participants, private forest owner and contractor), for conducting a FCT the ultimate decision is vitally dependent on the market situation: is there enough demand for roundwood at the regional level [69] and, evidently, at a global scale [70]? Further, integration of roundwood markets between countries (namely, Sweden and Finland) might generate a boost to local timber supply, as well [71].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 84%