A critical note on a long-running debate in forest economics

Open Access
Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Hiley's 1927 paper in the first issue of Forestry argued that economics was not just a theoretical discipline, but affected forestry practice. The long rotations desired by proponents of forest rental ignored forest capital. Soil rental gave a rational basis for choosing silvicultural regime and costing deviations from the most profitable option. Heavy thinning offered compromise between outcomes desired by forest and soil rental schools. Although Hiley's ideas have influenced British forestry, the forest rental caseis still argued. Development of monetizing techniques has undermined Hiley's belief that non-market benefits were ‘imponderable’. It remains importantto separate four issues: choice of discount rate, treatment of non-market effects, construction of performance criteria, and selection of silvicultural regime.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: