4.2 Article

An assessment of forest sector modeling approaches: conceptual differences and quantitative comparison

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH
Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 60-72

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.1080/02827581.2014.999822

Keywords

myopic models; dynamic recursive models; forest sector models; intertemporal optimization models; partial equilibrium; forest economics

Categories

Funding

  1. Research Council of Norway
  2. Norwegian Forest Owner Association
  3. Norwegian forest industries [415764, 415735, 415758]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Forest sector models are widely used for policy and economic analyses. Basic assumptions vary considerably between models, but little attention has been paid to the impacts these differences may have on model results. Norway provides a great opportunity to fill this void as it has two forest sector models currently in use based on different modeling assumptions, but sharing the same data source. In one model, agents are assumed to be myopic in the meaning that they rely only on the current market conditions. Harvest behavior is in this model based on econometric relations and exogenous forest growth rates. The second model approach employs extensive forest data and assumes that agents have perfect information over the model time horizon. We discuss the differences between the two modeling approaches and compare quantitatively the model results of two case studies. However, both types of models are rather sensitive to changes in assumptions and data. The strengths and weaknesses of the two model approaches and their appropriateness for responding to the study questions should be considered when choosing modeling methodology. Using both models in parallel removes the uncertainty caused by the foresight assumption/optimization routine and thus provides in total more information.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available