Arto Haara, Juho Matala, Markus Melin, Janne Miettinen, Kari T. Korhonen, Tuula Packalen, Jari Varjo. (2021). Economic effects of grouse-friendly forest management. Silva Fennica vol. 55 no. 3 article id 10468. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.10468

Keywords: grouse; simulation; trade-offs; game keeping; interest rate

Highlights: The economic effects of grouse friendly forest management were evaluated by simulating alternative forest management approaches on four large forest holdings in different parts of Finland; The grouse-friendly management of forest holdings was possible with minor effects on the economics in most cases: only in one case was the reduction of NPV more than 5% during a 30-year simulation period; The interest rates had an impact on the differences between the economic effects of the forest management approaches.

Abstract | Full text in HTML | Full text in PDF | Author Info

Traditional timber production may have negative effects on other ecosystem services. Therefore, new forest management guidelines have been developed in order to enhance a habitat suitable for wildlife. In Finland, a recent example of this is grouse-friendly forest management (GFFM) which emphasises the preservation of grouse species (Tetronidae) habitats. This study aimed to analyse the economic effects of these guidelines. An analysis was made on how the application of GFFM affected the Net Present Value (NPV) in a 30-year simulation of forest management of four large forest holdings located from south to north in Finland. In the simulations, traditional forest management practices were compared to two levels of GFFM. Five levels of interest rate were used, namely 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5%. In most of the simulations, the NPV was reduced by about 1% or less due to the application of GFFM in comparison to the traditional reference forest management. Only in one case with more intensive GFFM, was the reduction of NPV more than 5%. The interest rates had an impact on the differences between the management approaches. For example, a low interest rate resulted in a higher thinning intensity in GFFM in comparison to traditional forest management, which lead to a higher NPV in GFFM. To sum up, it seems that it would be possible to manage forest holdings in a grouse-friendly manner with minor effects on the economics.

Haara, LUKE https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6895-5300 E-mail: arto.haara@luke.fi
Matala, Natural Resources Institute Finland, (Luke), Natural resources, Yliopistokatu 6B, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: juho.matala@luke.fi
Melin, Natural Resources Institute Finland, (Luke), Bioeconomy and environment, Yli opistokatu 6B, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: markus.melin@luke.fi
Miettinen, Finnish Wildlife Agency, Ratatie 41, FI-91501 Muhos, Finland E-mail: janne.miettinen@riista.fi
Korhonen, Natural Resources Institute Finland, (Luke), Bioeconomy and environment, Yli opistokatu 6B, FI-80100 Joensuu, Finland E-mail: kari.t.korhonen@luke.fi
Packalen, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, P.O. Box 30, FI-00023 GOVERNMENT, Finland E-mail: tuula.packalen@mmm.fi
Varjo, Finnish Wildlife Agency, Sompiontie 1, FI-00730 Helsinki, Finland E-mail: jari.varjo@riista.fi

Click this link to register to Silva Fennica.

If you are a registered user, log in to save your selected articles for later access.

Contents alert

Your selected articles

Follow @SilvaFennica