2005
DOI: 10.1016/s1389-9341(03)00012-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The private cost and timber market implications of increasing strict forest conservation in Finland

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
14
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
14
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The concerns over a potentially decreased harvest predicted in the scenarios presented by Eriksson et al (2006) and Leppänen et al (2005) or the estimated reduction of harvesting potential reported by Lundström et al (1997), Skogsstyrelsen (2000), Jacobsson (2002), are thus not supported by our findings. In contrast to the Finnish situation reported by Leppänen et al (2005), the certified Swedish forest owners seems to have increased their income by a larger volume harvested and a somewhat higher price for certified timber paid by some major buyers like the forest owner association Södra skogsägarna.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 78%
“…The concerns over a potentially decreased harvest predicted in the scenarios presented by Eriksson et al (2006) and Leppänen et al (2005) or the estimated reduction of harvesting potential reported by Lundström et al (1997), Skogsstyrelsen (2000), Jacobsson (2002), are thus not supported by our findings. In contrast to the Finnish situation reported by Leppänen et al (2005), the certified Swedish forest owners seems to have increased their income by a larger volume harvested and a somewhat higher price for certified timber paid by some major buyers like the forest owner association Södra skogsägarna.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 78%
“…In some areas governmental regulations concerning, for example, nature conservation and land use policy restrict or totally prohibit possibilities to use forest resources. This is likely to decrease a community's income from forestry and increase the price of wood for the forest industry because of an expanded procurement area (Leppänen et al 2005;Hänninen and Kallio 2007;Kärkkäinen et al 2017a).…”
Section: Nfi and Forestry Scenario Modellingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, increased bio-energy production could also have negative effects on biodiversity (Huston and Marland 2003), whereas enhanced biodiversity protection may decrease wood supply (Linden and Uusivuori 2002;Bolkesjø et al 2005;Leppänen et al 2005;Kallio et al 2006;Hänninen and Kallio 2007). It is likely that while the provisioning of some services can be combined in the same forest, trade-offs may occur between the provisioning of other services (cf.…”
Section: Demands On European Forestsmentioning
confidence: 99%