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
  • [31] Cost Management: Measuring, Monitoring, and Motivating Performance
    Lawrence, Carol
    [J]. ISSUES IN ACCOUNTING EDUCATION, 2005, 20 (03): : 296 - 297
  • [32] MEASURING THE UNMEASURABLE - SETTING STANDARDS FOR MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE
    ODIORNE, GS
    [J]. BUSINESS HORIZONS, 1987, 30 (04) : 69 - 75
  • [33] A Study on Method of Measuring Performance for Project Management
    Mochida, Shinji
    [J]. 20TH ISPE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CONCURRENT ENGINEERING, 2013, : 264 - 273
  • [34] MEASURING PERFORMANCE IN CAPITAL PROJECT-MANAGEMENT
    SNOWDON, M
    [J]. LONG RANGE PLANNING, 1980, 13 (04) : 51 - 55
  • [35] Measuring the Macroeconomic Performance of Public Finance Management
    Pulay, Gyula
    Simon, Jozsef
    [J]. PUBLIC FINANCE QUARTERLY-HUNGARY, 2020, 65 : 23 - 43
  • [36] MEASURING PERFORMANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF PROCESS SAFETY MANAGEMENT
    SCHREIBER, S
    [J]. PROCESS SAFETY PROGRESS, 1994, 13 (02) : 64 - 68
  • [37] Measuring the performance of demand chain management systems
    Wu, YH
    Chou, SY
    Chen, YK
    [J]. CONCURRENT ENGINEERING: THE WORLDWIDE ENGINEERING GRID, PROCEEDINGS, 2004, : 533 - 538
  • [38] The matrix-forest theorem and measuring relations in small social groups
    Chebotarev, PY
    Shamis, EV
    [J]. AUTOMATION AND REMOTE CONTROL, 1997, 58 (09) : 1505 - 1514
  • [39] Forest Management Units' Performance in Forest Fire Management Implementation in Central Kalimantan and South Sumatra
    Budiningsih, Kushartati
    Nurfatriani, Fitri
    Salminah, Mimi
    Ulya, Nur Arifatul
    Nurlia, Ari
    Setiabudi, Irfan Malik
    Mendham, Daniel S.
    [J]. FORESTS, 2022, 13 (06):
  • [40] GROWTH PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT IN MIXED FOREST STANDS
    Roehle, Heinz
    [J]. 8TH INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE RURAL DEVELOPMENT 2017: BIOECONOMY CHALLENGES, 2017, : 781 - 785