Abstract

This study analyses the factors influencing tree felling decisions in private forests using data from the OUI-GEF survey at stand level, which was matched with biophysical information from three French Regional Natural Parks. Spatial probit statistical modelling high-lighted that the behaviour of forest owners and their presence on site (frequency of visits, perceived accessibility, leisure activities) play a more important role than physical and biological constraints alone. Decisions related to felling also appear to be interdependent, with significant neighbour effects.


Highlights:



  • Felling decisions in private forests depend more on the behaviour of forest owners and their presence on their stands than on just biophysical constraints.

  • Spatial interactions play a highly significant role: the felling of a stand is influenced by practices in neighbouring ones.

References

  • Agreste. (2015). Structure de la forêt privée. Les Dossiers Agreste, n° 30, Ministère de l’Agriculture
  • Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov, B. N. & Csáki, F. (dir.), Second International Symposium on Information Theory. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 267-281.
  • Becker, G.S. (1965). A theory of the allocation of time. The Economic Journal, 75(299), 493-517. https://doi.org/10.2307/2228949
  • Binkley, C. (1981). Timber supply from nonindustrial forests: a microeconomic analysis of landowner behavior. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
  • Binkley, C. (1987). Economic model of timber supply. In: Kallio, M., Dykstra, D. P., & Binkley, C. (dir.), The global forest sector: An analytical perspective. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 109-136.
  • Bolkesjø, T. F. & Baardsen, S. (2002). Roundwood supply in Norway: Micro-level analysis of self-employed forest owners. Forest Policy and Economics, 4(1), 55-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(01)00081-8
  • Brazee, R.J. & Mendelsohn, R. (1988). Timber harvesting with fluctuating stumpage prices. Forest Science, 34(2), 359-372. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/34.2.359
  • Brunette, M., Foncel, J. & Kéré, E. N. (2017). Attitude towards risk and production decision: An empirical analysis on French private forest owners. Post-print HAL (hal-01744533). https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01744533
  • Brunette, M., Foncel, J. & Kéré, Éric N. (2016). Attitude face au risque et décision de récolte des propriétaires forestiers privés français. Revue forestière française, 68(3), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/62007
  • Centre National de la Propriété Forestière (CNPF-IDF). (2021). Forêt-entreprise, n° 256 : Chiffres clés de la forêt privée. Coordonné par J. Thomas et N. Maréchal, Paris : CNPF-IDF.
  • Conway, C., Amacher, G.S., Sullivan, J. & Wear, D. (2003). Decisions nonindustrial forest landowners make: an empirical examination. Journal of Forest Economics, 9(3), 181-203. https://doi.org/10.1078/1104-6899-00034
  • Dennis, D.F. (1989). An Economic Analysis of Harvest Behavior: Integrating Forest an Ownership Characteristics. Forest Science, 35(4), 1088-1104.
  • Dennis, D.F. (1990). A Probit Analysis of the Harvest Decision Using Pooled Time-Series and Cross-Sectional Data, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 18, 176-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(90)90047-3
  • Faustmann, M. (1849). Berechnung des Wertes, welchen Waldboden sowie noch nicht haubare Holzbestände für die Waldwirtschaft besitzen. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagd-Zeitung, 25, 441-455.
  • Favada, I.M., Karppinen, H., Kuuluvainen, J., Mikkola, J. & Stavness, C. (2009). Effects of Timber Prices, Ownership Objectives, and Owner Characteristics on Timber Supply. Forest Science, 55 (6), 512–523, https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/55.6.512
  • Fortin, M., Pichancourt, J.-B., Climaco de Melo, L., Colin, A. & Caurla, S. (2019). The effect of stumpage prices on large-area forest growth forecasts based on socio-ecological models. Forestry, 92(3), 339-356. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpz016
  • Fuhr, M., Becquey, J., Berger, F., Bock, J., Bourhis, F. et al. (2022). PSDR4 OUIGEF – Outils innovants pour une gestion concertée des forêts. Innovations Agronomiques, 86, 319-329. https://doi.org/10.17180/ciag-2022-vol86-art27
  • Garcia, S., Kéré, E.N. & Stenger, A. (2014). Econometric analysis of social interactions in the production decisions of private forest owners. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 41(2), 177–198, https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbt027
  • Hartman, R. (1976). The harvesting decision when a standing forest has value. Economic Inquiry, 14(1), 52-58.
  • Hyberg, B.T. & Holthausen, D.M. (1989). The behavior of nonindustrial private forest landowners. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, August 1989, https://doi.org/10.1139/x89-155
  • Joshi, S. & Arano, K.G. (2009). Determinants of private forest management decisions: A study on West Virginia NIPF landowners. Forest Policy and Economics, 11, 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2008.10.005
  • Kéré, E.N. (2013). Analyse économétrique des decisions de production des propriétaires forestiers privés non-industriels en France. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Lorraine.
  • Kéré, E. N., Brunette, M. & Foncel, J. (2015). Attitude towards risk and production decision: An empirical analysis on French private forest owners. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01005200
  • Kuuluvainen, J., Karppinen, H. & Ovaskainen, V. (1996). Landowner objectives and nonindustrial private timber supply. Forest Science, 42(3), 300–309. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/42.3.300
  • Kuuluvainen, J. & Salo, J. (1991). Timber supply and life cycle harvest of nonindustrial private forest owners: An empirical analysis of the Finnish case. Forest Science, 37(4), 1011-1028. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/37.4.1011
  • LeSage, J. & Pace, R.K. (2009). An introduction to spatial econometrics. Boca Raton : CRC Press, Taylor & Francis.
  • McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Zarembka, P., editor: Frontiers in Econometrics, 105-142. Academic Press: New York.
  • McMillen, D. (2013). McSpatial: Nonparametric spatial data analysis (R package version 2.0). Disponible sur : http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=McSpatial
  • Ohlin, B. (1921). Till fragan om skogarnas omloppstid. Ekonomisk Tidskrift, 22, 89-113.
  • Petucco, C., Abildtrup, J. & Stenger, A. (2015). Influences of nonindustrial private forest landowners’ management priorities on the timber harvest decision: A case study in France. Journal of Forest Economics, 21(3), 152-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2015.07.001
  • Pressler, M. (1860). Aus der holzzuwachlehre (zweiter artikel). Allgemeine Forst Und Jagdzeitung, 36, 91-173.
  • Prestemon, J.P. & Wear, D.N. (2000). Linking Harvest Choices to Timber Supply. Forest Science 46(3), 377-389.
  • Routledge, R. (1980). The effect of potential catastrophic mortality and other unpredictable events on forest rotation policy. Forest Science, 28(3), 389-399. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/26.3.389
  • Salzet, G., Mathieu, V. & Caurla, S. (2020). Analyse spatiale des clusters industriels dans le secteur forêt-bois et leur impact sur la probabilité de coupe. Communication présentée au symposium PSDR4, Angers, 28-30 octobre 2020.
  • Størdal, S., Lien, G. & Baardsen, S. (2008). Analyzing determinants of forest owners’ decision-making using a sample selection framework. Journal of Forest Economics, 14(3), 159-176.
  • Tivadar, M., Thomas, J., Bastick, C., Colin, A., Leblois, A. et al. (2024). Mobilisation de bois en forêt privée : rôle des caractéristiques individuelles et territoriales : projet Mobinter, rapport final. ADEME. 171 p. https://hal.science/hal-04996722
  • Tivadar, M., Thomas, J. & Didolot, F. (2025). Le rôle des caractéristiques sociodémographiques dans les décisions de coupe de bois des propriétaires forestiers privés français : réponses apportées par les approches statistiques des enquêtes RESOFOP 2011-2015. Revue forestière française, 76, 69-85. https://doi.org/10.20870/revforfr.2025.9221
  • Uusivuori, J. & Kuuluvainen, J. (2005). The harvesting decisions when a standing forest with multiple age-classes has value. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(1), 61-76. DOI: 10.1111/j.0002-9092.2005.00702.x
  • Wilhelm, S. & Matos, M. G. D. (2013). spatialprobit: Spatial probit models (R package). Disponible sur : http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=spatialprobit
  • Youden, W. J. (1950). Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer, 3(1), 32-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::AID-CNCR2820030106>3.0.CO;2-3

Authors

Mihai Tivadar

mihai.tivadar@inrae.fr

Affiliation : Université Grenoble Alpes, INRAE, LESSEM – 2 Rue de la Papeterie, 38402 Saint-Martin-d’Hères

Country : France

Julie Thomas

Affiliation : CNPF, Nancy, Institut du Développement Forestier – 11 Rue de la Commanderie, 54000 Nancy.

Country : France

Attachments

No supporting information for this article

Article statistics

Views: 72

Citations