Measuring the social performance of forest management

被引:9
|
作者
Pukkala, Timo [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Eastern Finland, POB 111, Joensuu 80101, Finland
关键词
Efficiency analysis; Acceptability; Sustainable forestry; Performance index; Utility function; Multi-criteria analysis; Continuous cover forestry; Even-aged forestry; Resilience; NORWAY SPRUCE; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; TRADE-OFFS; SCOTS PINE; ACCEPTABILITY; SUSTAINABILITY; LANDSCAPE; DIVERSITY;
D O I
10.1007/s11676-021-01321-z
中图分类号
S7 [林业];
学科分类号
0829 ; 0907 ;
摘要
Forests produce several types of benefits to both forest landowners and society. The social benefit of private forestry is equal to private benefit plus positive externalities minus negative externalities. This study developed alternative metrics for the evaluation of the social benefit of forest management. Forest management was assessed in terms of five criteria: economic, socio-cultural, environmental and ecological performance and the resilience of the forest ecosystem. Each criterion was described with three numerical indicators. Alternative performance indices were calculated from the indicator values using methods developed for multi-criteria decision making. It was concluded that indices based on the multiplicative Cobb-Douglas utility function might be the most recommendable when forestry should produce a balanced combination of different ecosystem services. When the indices were used to compare alternative silvicultural systems in terms of their social performance, continuous cover management was ranked better than even-aged management. The performance of even-aged management improved when it aimed at increasing the share of mixed stands and broadleaf species. Maximizing net present value (NPV) with a 1% discount rate led to better social performance than maximizing NPV with a 4% discount rate.
引用
收藏
页码:1803 / 1818
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Measuring the social performance of forest management
    Timo Pukkala
    [J]. Journal of Forestry Research, 2021, 32 (05) : 1803 - 1818
  • [2] Measuring the social performance of forest management
    Timo Pukkala
    [J]. Journal of Forestry Research, 2021, 32 : 1803 - 1818
  • [3] MEASURING THE EFFICIENCY OF FOREST MANAGEMENT
    KAO, C
    YANG, YC
    [J]. FOREST SCIENCE, 1991, 37 (05) : 1239 - 1252
  • [4] MEASURING CORPORATE SOCIAL PERFORMANCE
    Le Ha Nhu Thao
    Doan Ngoc Phi Anh
    Velencei, Jolan
    [J]. SERBIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT, 2019, 14 (01) : 193 - 204
  • [5] MEASURING CORPORATE SOCIAL PERFORMANCE
    Salazar, Jose
    Husted, Bryan
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NINETEENTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR BUSINESS AND SOCIETY, 2008, 19 : 149 - 161
  • [6] Measuring Performance in Social Enterprises
    Bagnoli, Luca
    Megali, Cecilia
    [J]. NONPROFIT AND VOLUNTARY SECTOR QUARTERLY, 2011, 40 (01) : 149 - 165
  • [7] Measuring fisheries management performance
    Hilborn, Ray
    [J]. ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE, 2020, 77 (7-8) : 2432 - 2438
  • [8] Measuring Performance of Chinese Corporate Social Responsibility by Information Management and Modeling for Investment Analysis
    Qi, Yue
    Wang, Yuanyuan
    Li, Dahui
    [J]. FOURTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COOPERATION AND PROMOTION OF INFORMATION RESOURCES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (COINFO 2009), 2009, : 122 - +
  • [9] Measuring economic performance and social progress
    Leunig, Tim
    [J]. EUROPEAN REVIEW OF ECONOMIC HISTORY, 2011, 15 : 357 - 363
  • [10] WORKSHOP: MEASURING CORPORATE SOCIAL PERFORMANCE
    Maas, Karen
    Husted, Bryan
    Biehl, Markus
    McElroy, Mark
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 20TH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR BUSINESS AND SOCIETY, 2009, 20 : 376 - 382