A behavioral model of timber supply

https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(88)90029-0Get rights and content

Abstract

A dynamic behavioral model of timber supply is developed. The diverse motivation of forest owners is recognized and the implications for optimal harvest patterns is explored. This model is particularly relevant for the non-industrial private forest (NIPF) sector, and has possible uses for public forest management. Properties of the optimal NIPF timber supply curve are established, and the effects of various taxes are examined. To explore a more structured model, simulations are conducted based upon data from a typical redwood region. The projections provide indicative results for tax and other timber land policies. These results are seen to depend crucially on the forms of the landowner's utility function and upon the function relating standing timber to non-income outputs of the forest. Directions for needed empirical research are then indicated.

References (29)

  • K Arrow

    Aspects of the Theory of Risk-Bearing

    (1965)
  • C Binkley

    Timber Supply from Private Non-industrial Forests

    (1981)
  • C Binkley

    Long Run Timber Supply: Price Elasticity, Inventory Elasticity, and the Capital-Output Ratio

    (1985)
  • M.D Bowes et al.

    Forest management for increased timber and water yields

    Water Resources Res.

    (1984)
  • R Boyd

    The Effects of FIP and Forestry Assistance on Nonindustrial Private Forests

  • S.J Chang

    Rotation age, management intensity, and the economic factors of timber production: Do changes in stumpage price, interest rate, regeneration cost, and forest taxation matter?

    Forest Sci.

    (1983)
  • A.C Chang

    Fundamental Methods of Mathematical Economics

  • C.W Clark

    Mathematical Bioeconomics

    (1976)
  • M Clawson

    Economics of U.S. Non-industrial Private Forests

    Resources for the Future Research Paper R-14

    (1979)
  • D Cromwell et al.

    Tax Policy for CA Timberlands

    (1974)
  • P.S Dasgupta et al.

    Economic Theory and Exhaustible Resources

    (1979)
  • P.E Graves

    Relative risk aversion: Increasing or decreasing?

    J. Finan. Quantitative Anal.

    (1979)
  • R Hartman

    The harvesting decision when a standing forest has value

    Econom. Inquiry

    (1976)
  • C Howe

    Natural Resource Economics: Issues, Analysis, and Policy

    (1979)
  • Cited by (58)

    • A theoretical and empirical analysis of joint forest production: Timber supply and amenity services

      2020, Forest Policy and Economics
      Citation Excerpt :

      The theoretical framework of this study is based on the two-period utility-based household production model introduced by Max and Lehman (1988) and used by Koskela (1989), Kuuluvainen (1990), Prestemon and Wear (2000), and Polyakov et al. (2010). Max and Lehman (1988) point out that the two-period utility maximizing behavioral model of timber and amenity production can be extended beyond NIPF to any other landowners with multiple objectives. Meanwhile, the utility in the household production model is derived from both timber and non-timber outputs from a forest and explicitly considers non-timber benefits and timber growth dynamics along with income generation for landowners (Binkley, 1981).

    • Behavioral determinants of supply chain integration and coexistence

      2016, Journal of Forest Economics
      Citation Excerpt :

      If a seller expects higher prices, he can postpone selling if the commodity itself can be stored and there are no economic constraints and commitments. Indeed, negative price elasticity of supply is a recurrent finding in wood market studies (Bergen et al., 2013; Schwarzbauer and Stern, 2010), but it depends crucially on capital and ownership structures and related management objectives (Binkley, 1993; Max and Lehman, 1988). Price expectations can be elicited experimentally by providing monetary incentives to subjects for forecasting correctly the interval of a specific price at some future point in time.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    The authors wish to thank E. Morey for many helpful suggestions. We also thank K. E. McConnell and two referees for comments which significantly improved our presentation. We remain responsible for any errors. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Conference on Nonindustrial Private Forest Policy and Research at Duke University, April 1983.

    View full text