Research article

Development and analysis of an opportunity cost simulation accounting for the spatial distributions of local forest management

Tohru Nakajima , Norihiko Shiraishi, Hidesato Kanomata, Mitsuo Matsumoto

Tohru Nakajima
The University of Tokyo, Laboratory of Forest Management, Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, the University of Tokyo, 1-1-1 Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8657, Japan. Email: nakajima@fr.a.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Norihiko Shiraishi
The University of Tokyo, Laboratory of Forest Management, Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, the University of Tokyo, 1-1-1 Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8657, Japan
Hidesato Kanomata
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, 1 Matsunosato, Tsukuba 305-8687, Japan
Mitsuo Matsumoto
Hokkaido Research Center, Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, 7 Hitsujigaoka, Toyohira, Sapporo, Hokkaido 062-8516, Japan

Online First: April 12, 2017
Nakajima, T., Shiraishi, N., Kanomata, H., Matsumoto, M. 2017. Development and analysis of an opportunity cost simulation accounting for the spatial distributions of local forest management. Annals of Forest Research DOI:10.15287/afr.2016.770


We describe the development of a simulation based on neighbor relationships between small stands forming many sub compartments in a forested area. We used a Geographic Information System (GIS) to simulate local forest management plans. The distribution and intensity of different silvicultural practices were visualized. We also determined whether, at specified rates, the implementation of forestry operations was optimum for the desired outcomes in specific compartments. Based on the results, we discuss the tradeoff between two silvicultural strategies. First, the rational economic strategy, which generally focuses on implementing silvicultural prescriptions in some compartments. Second, the environmental strategy, which generally focuses on implementing silvicultural prescriptions in all compartments, taking account of environmental forestry practices. The difference between profits under the two strategies at the study site was approximately 20 %, and this economic difference could be considered to represent “opportunity costs” of a commitment to environmentally conscious management. We created the simulation to map the strategies based on the location of existing forest roads and any special constraints. In addition, the model could be used as a decision-making tool for considering the tradeoff between environmental and economic strategies.

Anitha V., Muraleedharan P.K., Santheep K.V. 2008. Traditional bamboo products and their market sustainability in the wake of globalization - An opportunity cost analysis. Indian Forester 134: 428-434.

Barlow R., Grado S., Miller D., Grebner D. 2007. Opportunity costs of managing for wildlife habitat in the North Central Hills region of Mississippi. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 31: 39–46.

Bettinger P., Greatz D., Boston K., Sessions J., Chung W. 2002. Eight heuristic planning techniques applied to three increasingly difficult wildlife planning problems. Silva Fennica 36:561–584. DOI: 10.14214/sf.545

Boyce S.G. 1995. Landscape forestry. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.

Chabrerie O., Roulier F., Hoeblich H., Sebert-Cuvillier E., Closset-Kopp D., Leblanc I., Jaminon J., Decocq G. 2007. Defining patch mosaic functional types to predict invasion patterns in a forest landscape. Ecological Applications 17: 464-481. DOI: 10.1890/06-0614

Clutter J.L., Fortson J.C., Pienaar L.V., Brister G.H., Bailey R.L. 1983. Timber management: a quantitative approach. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 333 p.

Davis L.S., Johanson K.N. 1987. Forest management. McGraw-hill, New York, USA.

Davis L.S., Johanson K.N., Bettinger P., Howard T.E. 2001. Forest management to sustain ecological, economic and social values. McGraw-hill, New York, USA.

Falcão A.O., Borges J.G. 2001. Designing an evolution program for solving integer forest management scheduling models: An application in Portugal. Forest. Science 47:158 –168.

Forestry Agency 2007. Annual report on trends of forest and forestry - fiscal year 2006. Tokyo: Japan Forestry Association, 17 p.

Fox B., Keller M.A., Schlosberg A.J., Vlahovich J.E. 1989. Opportunity costs of implementing forest plans. Environmental Management 13: 75-84. DOI: 10.1007/BF01867588

Galik C.S., Jackson R.B. 2009. Risks to forest carbon offset projects in a changing climate. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 2209–2216. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.03.017

Greco, S.E. 2013. Patch change and the shifting mosaic of an endangered bird's habitat on a large meandering river. River Research and Applications 29: 707–717. DOI: 10.1002/rra.2568

Gulbrandsen L.H. 2005. Mark of sustainability? Challenges for fishery and forestry ecolabeling. Environment 47: 8-23. DOI: 10.3200/ENVT.47.5.8-23

Hiroshima T., Nakajima T. 2006. Estimation of sequestered carbon in Article-3.4 private planted forests in the first commitment period in Japan. Journal of Forest Research 11: 427– 437. DOI: 10.1007/s10310-006-0236-5

Holland, J.H., 1975. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann Harbor, MI.

IPCC .2000. Land use, land-use change and forestry. Special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 377 p.

IPCC 2007. Climate Change 2007. Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Metz, B., Davidson, O.R., Bosch, P.R., Dave, R., Meyer, L.A. (Eds.), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 852 p.

Kittredge D.B. 2005. The cooperation of private forest owners on scales larger than one individual property: International examples and potential application in the United States. Forest Policy and Economics 7:671–688. DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2003.12.004

Lancia R.A., Roise J.P., Adams D.A., Lennarts M.R. 1989. Opportunity costs of red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 13: 81–85.

Lowell E.C., Becker D.R., Larson D., Rummer R., Wadleigh L. 2008. An integrated approach to evaluating the economic costs of wildfire hazard reduction through wood utilization opportunities in the southwestern United States. Forest Science 54: 273–283.

Mason C.L., Lippke B.R., Zobrist M.C., Sandoval G., Davis E.J. 2014. Comparing conditions of labor-intensive forestry and fire suppression workers. Society & Natural Resources 27: 540-556. DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2014.888792

Miyazaki Prefecture Government 2015. Miyazaki forestry statistical data. Miyazaki Prefecture: Miyazaki, 179 p.

Naidoo R., Adamowicz W.L. 2006. Modeling opportunity costs of conservation in transitional landscapes. Conservation Biology 20: 490-500. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00304.x

Nakajima T., Kanomata H., Matsumoto M., Tatsuhara S., Shiraishi N. 2009a. The application of "Wood Max" for total optimization of forestry profits based on joint implementation silvicultural practices. Kyushu Journal of Forest Research 62: 176–180.

Nakajima T., Kanomata H., Ito T., Tatsuhara S., Shiraishi N. 2009b. Forest owner attitudes about tree thinning practices - a case study in Hayakawa, Yamanashi Prefecture, Japan. FORMATH 8: 179–194.

Nakajima T., Kanomata H., Matsumoto M., Tatsuhara S., Shiraishi N. 2011a. Cost-effectiveness analysis of subsidy schemes for industrial timber development and carbon sequestration in Japanese forest plantations. Journal of Forestry Research 22: 1-12. DOI: 10.1007/s11676-011-0117-4

Nakajima T., Kanomata H., Matsumoto M., 2016. Visualization of optimized solution space using a simulation system for the development of local forest management planning. Ann. For. Res. 59(1): 117-128. DOI: 10.15287/afr.2016.556

Nortongriffiths M., Southey C. 1995. The opportunity costs of biodiversity conservation in Kenya. Ecological Economics 12: 125-139. DOI: 10.1016/0921-8009(94)00041-S

Oka M. 2006. The study of analysis and valuation of harvesting operation by mechanization. Ph.D thesis of the University of Tokyo. (In Japanese)

Pukkala T. 2002. Multi-objective forest planning. Boston: Kluwer Academic, 207 p. DOI: 0.1007/978-94-015-9906-1

Layton David F., Siikamaki J. 2009. Payments for ecosystem services programs: predicting landowner enrollment and opportunity cost using a beta-binomial model. Environmental & Resource Economics 44: 415-439. DOI: 10.1007/s10640-009-9293-5

Redon M., Luque S., Gosselin F., Cordonnier T. 2014. Is generalisation of unevenaged management in mountain forests the key to improve biodiversity conservation within forest landscape mosaics? Annals of Forest Science 71: 751–760. DOI: 10.1007/s13595-014-0371-7

Taboada A., Kotze D.J., Tarrega R., Salgado J.M. 2006. Traditional forest management: do carabid beetles respond to human-created vegetation structures in an oak mosaic landscape? Forest Ecology and Management 237: 436–449. DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2006.09.077

van Kooten G.C., Stennes B., Krcmar-Nozic E., van Gorkom R. 2000. Economics of afforestation for carbon sequestration in Western Canada. The Forestry Chronicle 76: 165-172. DOI: 10.5558/tfc76165-1

UNFCCC 2002. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its seventh session, held at Marrakesh from 29 October to 10 November 2001. Addendum. Part two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties. Volume I. United Nations Office at Geneva: Geneva, 69 p.

UNFCCC 2012. Report of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol on its seventh session, held in Durban from 28 November to 11 December 2011. United Nations Office at Geneva, Geneva (Switzerland).

Yousefpour, R., Hanewinkel,M. 2014. Balancing decisions for adaptive and multipurpose conversion of Norway Spruce (Picea abies L. Karst) monocultures in the Black Forest area of Germany. Forest Science 60: 73-84. DOI: 10.5849/forsci.11-125


No Supplimentary Material available for this article.
No metrics available for this article.