Abstract
Purpose of Review
We give an overview of economic drivers and consequences of diversification in forest management. Starting with formal portfolio-theory analyses of the optimal forest composition, we review other, often-disregarded factors that influence diversification. A special focus of our review is the interrelation between economic diversification and multifunctionality, asking if optimal economic diversification supports increased levels of multiple ecosystem services as a positive externality.
Recent Findings
Analyses considering economic diversification in forest management mainly build on Markowitz’ theory of portfolio selection, which is essentially a statistical theory. They emphasize that the economic diversification of forest composition, regeneration and/or thinning strategies, quality of timber logs, or age classes can significantly reduce risks. Further studies assume that risk-averse landowners will provide benefits for the society as a by-product of their management strategies, because economic diversification is usually associated with enhanced biodiversity and higher levels of multiple ecosystem services.
Summary
We identify drivers and consequences of economic diversification that have been seldom addressed in previous studies. These include the aim to achieve subsistence, to balance site-dependent marginal economic return among various stand types, to utilize synergistic effects between mixed tree species and to achieve averaging effects over time (time diversification). Another important factor influencing and influenced by diversification is multifunctionality, because economic diversification alone does not necessarily automatically provide a larger range of uncertain ecosystem services. Consequently, future research could extend classical portfolio approaches to multi-objective, robust optimization.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Crop diversification is reduced when there are other means available to protect against return volatility of single crops. For example, if landowners have access to insurance or obtain off-farm (off-forest) income, they tend to diversify their crops less.
Addition by the authors.
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance
Naeem S, Chapin III FS, Costanza R, Ehrlich PR, Golley FB, Hooper DU, et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: maintaining natural life support processes. Issues in ecology. 1999;4.
Naeem S, Duffy JE, Zavaleta E. The functions of biological diversity in an age of extinction. Science. 2012;336:1401. doi:10.1126/science.1215855.
Figge F. Bio-folio: applying portfolio theory to biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv. 2004;13:827–49. doi:10.1023/B:BIOC.0000011729.93889.34.
Figge F. Managing biodiversity correctly—efficient portfolio management as an effective way of protecting species: Gerling Versicherungs-Beteiligungs-AG; 2002.
Di Falco S, Perrings C. Crop biodiversity, risk management and the implications of agricultural assistance. Ecol Econ. 2005;55:459–66. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.005.
Baumgärtner S, Quaas MF. Managing increasing environmental risks through agrobiodiversity and agrienvironmental policies. Agric Econ. 2010;41:483–96. doi:10.1111/j.1574-0862.2010.00460.x.
Peters, MD, Schraml U. Sustainability Frames in the Context of the Energy Wood Conflict in Germany. Sustainability. 2015;7. doi:10.3390/su71114501.
Marinoni O, Adkins P, Hajkowicz S. Water planning in a changing climate: joint application of cost utility analysis and modern portfolio theory. Env Modell Software. 2011;26:18–29. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.001.
Ando AW, Mallory ML. Optimal portfolio design to reduce climate-related conservation uncertainty in the Prairie Pothole Region. Proc of the Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109:6484–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.1114653109.
Rădulescu M, Rădulescu CZ, Zbăganu G. A portfolio theory approach to crop planning under environmental constraints. Ann Oper Res. 2014;219:243–64. doi:10.1007/s10479-011-0902-7.
Griffiths JR, Schindler DE, Armstrong JB, Scheuerell MD, Whited DC, Clark RA, et al. Performance of salmon fishery portfolios across western North America. J Appl Ecol. 2014;51:1554–63. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12341.
Schindler DE, Hilborn R, Chasco B, Boatright CP, Quinn TP, Rogers LA, et al. Population diversity and the portfolio effect in an exploited species. Nature. 2010;465:609–12. doi:10.1038/nature09060.
Knoke T, Ammer C, Stimm B, Mosandl R. Admixing broadleaved to coniferous tree species: a review on yield, ecological stability and economics. Eur J For Res. 2008;127:89–101.
Schütz J-P. Geschichtlicher Hergang und aktuelle Bedeutung der Plenterung in Europa. AFJZ. 1994;165:106–14.
Lopez J, De La Torre R, Cubbage F. Effect of land prices, transportation costs, and site productivity on timber investment returns for pine plantations in Colombia. New For. 2010;39:313–28. doi:10.1007/s11056-009-9173-4.
Marutani T. The effect of site quality on economically optimal stand management. J Forest Econ. 2010;16:35–46. doi:10.1016/j.jfe.2009.05.001.
Clasen C, Knoke T. Site conditions have an impact on compensation payments for the loss of tree species in mixed forests. Forestry. 2013;86:533–42. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpt027.
von Thünen, JH. Der isolirte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirthschaft und Nationalökonomie: Die naturgemässe Arbeitslose und dessen Verhältniss zum Zinsfuss und zur Landwirte. II. Theil, I. Abtheilung. Rostock, Germany: Leopold; 1845.
Knoke T, Steinbeis O-E, Bösch M, Román-Cuesta RM, Burkhardt T. Cost-effective compensation to avoid carbon emissions from forest loss: an approach to consider price–quantity effects and risk-aversion. Ecol Econ. 2011;70:1139–53. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.01.007.
• Neuner S, Albrecht A, Cullmann D, Engels F, Griess VC, Hahn WA, et al. Survival of Norway spruce remains higher in mixed stands under a dryer and warmer climate. Glob Change Biol. 2015;21:935–46. doi:10.1111/gcb.12751. Analyse the effect of species mixture on survival probability for Norway spruce and European beech
Pretzsch H, Schütze G. Transgressive overyielding in mixed compared with pure stands of Norway spruce and European beech in Central Europe: evidence on stand level and explanation on individual tree level. Europ J Forest Res. 2009;128:183–204. doi:10.1007/s10342-008-0215-9.
Kritzman M. What practitioners need to know… about time diversification (corrected). Finan Analysts J. 2015;71:29–34. doi:10.2469/faj.v71.n1.4.
Gamfeldt L, Snall T, Bagchi R, Jonsson M, Gustafsson L, Kjellander P, et al. Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species. Nat Commun. 2013;4:1340. doi:10.1038/ncomms2328.
Markowitz H. Portfolio selection. J Fin. 1952;7:77–91. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.1952.tb01525.x.
Macmillan WD. Risk and agricultural land use: a reformulation of the portfolio-theoretic approach to the analysis of a von Thünen economy. Geogr Anal. 1992;24:142–58. doi:10.1111/j.1538-4632.1992.tb00257.x.
Abson DJ, Fraser EDG, Benton TG. Landscape diversity and the resilience of agricultural returns: a portfolio analysis of land-use patterns and economic returns from lowland agriculture. Agric Food Secur. 2013;2:2. doi:10.1186/2048-7010-2-2.
Djanibekov U, Khamzina A. Stochastic economic assessment of afforestation on marginal land in irrigated farming system. Envir Resour Econ. 2016;63:95–117. doi:10.1007/s10640-014-9843-3.
Raes L, D’Haese M, Aguirre N, Knoke T. A portfolio analysis of incentive programmes for conservation, restoration and timber plantations in southern Ecuador. Land Use Pol. 2016;51:244–59. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.11.019.
Dieter M, Moog M, Borchert H. Considering serious hazards in forest management decision-making. In: von Gadow K, editor. Risk analysis in forest management. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2001. p. 201–32. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-2905-5_8.
Markowitz H. Mean–variance approximations to expected utility. Eur J Oper Res. 2014;234:346–55. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2012.08.023.
Neuner S, Beinhofer B, Knoke T. The optimal tree species composition for a private forest enterprise—applying the theory of portfolio selection. Scand J For Res. 2013;28:38–48. doi:10.1080/02827581.2012.683038.
Brunette M, Dragicevic A, Lenglet J, Niedzwiedz A, Badeau V, Dupouey J-L. Portfolio management of mixed-species forests: Laboratoire d’Economie Forestiere, AgroParisTech-INRA; 2014. Working Papers - Cahiers du LEF 2014–09. http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:lef:wpaper:2014–09.
Dragicevic A, Lobianco A, Leblois A. Forest planning and productivity-risk trade-off through the Markowitz mean-variance model. For Pol Econ. 2016;64:25–34. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2015.12.010.
Thomson TA. Efficient combinations of timber and financial market investments in single-period and multiperiod portfolios. For Sci. 1991;37:461–80.
Knoke T, Stimm B, Ammer C, Moog M. Mixed forests reconsidered: a forest economics contribution on an ecological concept. For Ecol Manag. 2005;213:102–16. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.03.043.
Hyytiäinen K, Penttinen M. Applying portfolio optimisation to the harvesting decisions of non-industrial private forest owners. For Pol Econ. 2008;10:151–60. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2007.07.002.
Beinhofer BT. Zur Anwendung der Portfoliotheorie in der Forstwissenschaft – Finanzielle Optimierungsansätze zur Bewertung von Diversifikationseffekten. München: Technische Universität München; 2009.
• Matthies BD, Kalliokoski T, Ekholm T, Hoen HF, Valsta LT. Risk, reward, and payments for ecosystem services: a portfolio approach to ecosystem services and forestland investment. Ecosyst Serv. 2015;16:1–12. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.08.006. Demonstrates that Payments for Ecosystem Services can have financial diversification benefits for European forest owners
Apiolaza L, Alzamora R. Building deployment portfolios for genotypes under performance instability. Silva Fenn. 2013;47. doi:10.14214/sf.901.
Bertsimas D, Lauprete GJ, Samarov A. Shortfall as a risk measure: properties, optimization and applications. J Econ Dyn Contr. 2004;28:1353–81. doi:10.1016/S0165-1889(03)00109-X.
Reeves LH, Haight RG. Timber harvest scheduling with price uncertainty using Markowitz portfolio optimization. Ann Oper Res. 2000;95:229–50. doi:10.1023/A:1018974712925.
Griess VC, Uhde B, Ham C, Seifert T. Product diversification in South Africa’s commercial timber plantations: a way to mitigate investment risk. Southern Forests. 2016;78:145–50. doi:10.2989/20702620.2015.1136508.
Beinhofer B. Comparing the financial performance of traditionally managed beech and oak stands with roomy established and pruned stands. Eur J For Res. 2010;129:175–87. doi:10.1007/s10342-009-0311-5.
Kurth H. Forsteinrichtung: Nachhaltige Regelung des Waldes. Berlin: Deutscher Landschaftsverlag; 1994.
Goldfarb D, Iyengar G. Robust portfolio selection problems. Mathematics of OR. 2003;28:1–38. doi:10.1287/moor.28.1.1.14260.
Mohamed-Katerere J, Smith M. The role of ecosystems in food security. Unasylva. 2013;64.
FAO. Towards food security and improved nutrition: increasing the contribution of forests and trees: Policy Brief: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2013.
Pannell DJ, Llewellyn RS, Corbeels M. The farm-level economics of conservation agriculture for resource-poor farmers. Agric Ecosyst Env. 2014;187:52–64. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.014.
Bartolini F, Andreoli M, Brunori G. Explaining determinants of the on-farm diversification: empirical evidence from Tuscany region. Bio-based and Appl Econ. 2014;3:137. doi:10.13128/BAE-12994.
Lin BB. Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification: adaptive management for environmental change. Bioscience. 2011;61:183–93. doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.4.
Samuelson PA. Thünen at two hundred. J Econ Lit. 1983;21:1468–88.
Benítez PC, Kuosmanen T, Olschewski R, Van Kooten Cornelis G. Conservation payments under risk: a stochastic dominance approach. Am J Agric Econ. 2006;88:1–15. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2006.00835.x.
Knoke T, Román-Cuesta RM, Weber M, Haber W. How can climate policy benefit from comprehensive land-use approaches? Front Ecol Env. 2012;10:438–45. doi:10.1890/110203.
Messerer K. Ökonomische Bewertung von Agroforstsystemen in der Dominikanischen Republik: Ein Optimierungsansatz unter Einbeziehung von Risiken und betrieblichen Restriktionen: Master‘s Thesis. Freising: TUM School of Life Sciences, Weihenstephan, Technische Universität München; 2015.
Koellner T, Schmitz OJ. Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and investment risk. Bioscience. 2006;56:977–85. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[977:BEFAIR]2.0.CO;2.
Forrester DI, Bauhus J. A review of processes behind diversity—productivity relationships in forests. Curr For Rep. 2016;2:45–61. doi:10.1007/s40725-016-0031-2.
Knoke T, Seifert T. Integrating selected ecological effects of mixed European beech–Norway spruce stands in bioeconomic modelling. Ecol Model. 2008;210:487–98. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.08.011.
Griess V, Knoke T. Bioeconomic modeling of mixed Norway spruce—European beech stands: economic consequences of considering ecological effects. Eur J Forest Res. 2013;132:511–22. doi:10.1007/s10342-013-0692-3.
Griess VC, Acevedo R, Härtl F, Staupendahl K, Knoke T. Does mixing tree species enhance stand resistance against natural hazards? A case study for spruce. For Ecol Manag. 2012;267:284–96. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.11.035.
Roessiger J, Griess VC, Härtl F, Clasen C, Knoke T. How economic performance of a stand increases due to decreased failure risk associated with the admixing of species. Ecol Model. 2013;255:58–69. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.01.019.
Roessiger J, Griess VC, Knoke T. May risk aversion lead to near-natural forestry? A simulation study. Forestry. 2011;84:527–37. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpr017.
Neuner S. Baumartenwahl im Klimawandel: Geänderte Überlebenswahrscheinlichkeiten und finanzielle Konsequenzen für Fichte, Buche und deren Mischbestände: Dissertation: Technische Universität München; 2016.
Neuner S, Knoke T. Economic consequences of altered survival of mixed or pure Norway spruce under a dryer and warmer climate. Clim Chang. 2017 (online first). doi:10.1007/s10584–016-1891-y.
Samuelson PA. Risk and uncertainty: a fallacy of large numbers. Scientia. 1963;57:1–6.
Strong N, Taylor N. Time diversification: empirical tests. J Bus Fin Account. 2001;28:263–302. doi:10.1111/1468-5957.00374.
Thavonen O, Kallio M. Optimal harvesting of forest age classes under price uncertainty and risk aversion. Nat Res Model. 2006;19:557–85. doi:10.1111/j.1939-7445.2006.tb00194.x.
Härtl F, Hahn A, Knoke T. Risk-sensitive planning support for forest enterprises: the YAFO model. Comp Electr Agric. 2013;94:58–70. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2013.03.004.
Hahn WA, Härtl F, Irland LC, Kohler C, Moshammer R, Knoke T. Financially optimized management planning under risk aversion results in even-flow sustained timber yield. For Pol Econ. 2014;42:30–41. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2014.02.002.
Hanewinkel M, Kuhn T, Bugmann H, Lanz A, Brang P. Vulnerability of uneven-aged forests to storm damage. Forestry. 2014;87:525–34. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpu008.
Dixit AK, Pindyck RS. Investment under uncertainty: Princeton University Press; 1994.
Brazee R, Mendelsohn R. Timber harvesting with fluctuating prices. For Sci. 1988;34:359–72.
Jacobsen JB, Helles F. Adaptive and nonadaptive harvesting in uneven-aged beech forest with stochastic prices. For Policy Econ. 2006;8:223–38. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2004.06.004.
Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ. A Danish example of optimal thinning strategies in mixed-species forest under changing growth conditions caused by climate change. For Ecol Manag. 2003;180:375–88. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00652-7.
Schou E, Thorsen BJ, Jacobsen JB. Regeneration decisions in forestry under climate change related uncertainties and risks: effects of three different aspects of uncertainty. For Policy Econ. 2015;50:11–9. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2014.09.006.
Schou E, Jacobsen JB, Kristensen KL. An economic evaluation of strategies for transforming even-aged into near-natural forestry in a conifer-dominated forest in Denmark. Forest Policy Econ. 2012;20:89–98. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2012.02.010.
Soliveres S, van der Plas F, Manning P, Prati D, Gossner MM, Renner SC, et al. Biodiversity at multiple trophic levels is needed for ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature. 2016;536:456–9. doi:10.1038/nature19092.
Gámez-Virués S, Perović DJ, Gossner MM, Börschig C, Blüthgen N, De Jong H, et al. Landscape simplification filters species traits and drives biotic homogenization. Nat Commun. 2015;6;8568. doi:10.1038/ncomms9568.
Tscharntke T, Tylianakis JM, Rand TA, Didham RK, Fahrig L, Batary P, et al. Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes-eight hypotheses. Biol Rev. 2012;87:661–85. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00216.x.
Kremen C, Miles A. Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems: benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. E&S. 2012;17 doi:10.5751/ES-05035-170440.
• Knoke T, Paul C, Hildebrandt P, Calvas B, Castro LM, Hartl F, et al. Compositional diversity of rehabilitated tropical lands supports multiple ecosystem services and buffers uncertainties. Nat Commun. 2016;7:11877. doi:10.1038/ncomms11877. Suggest a robust multi-objective optimization approach for restoration planning. They demonstrate that a diversified landscape may achieve a balanced provision of multiple ecosystem services under uncertainty.
Chang N-B, Wen CG, Wu SL. Optimal management of environmental and land resources in a reservoir watershed by multiobjective programming. J Env Manage. 1995;44:144–61. doi:10.1006/jema.1995.0036.
• Estrella R, Cattrysse D, van Orshoven J. Comparison of three ideal point-based multi-criteria decision methods for afforestation planning. Forests. 2014;5. doi:10.3390/f5123222. Suggest a balanced compromise programming approach to optimize ecosystem services.
Ben-Tal A, El Ghaoui L, Nemirovski A. Robust optimization: Princeton University Press; 2009.
Knoke T, Paul C, Härtl F, Castro LM, Calvas B, Hildebrandt P. Optimizing agricultural land-use portfolios with scarce data—a non-stochastic model. Ecol Econ. 2015;120:250–9. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.021.
Koschke L, Fürst C, Frank S, Makeschin F. A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning. Ecol Indic. 2012;21:54–66. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.010.
Romero C. Extended lexicographic goal programming: a unifying approach. Omega. 2001;29:63–71. doi:10.1016/S0305-0483(00)00026-8.
Diaz-Balteiro L, Romero C. Making forestry decisions with multiple criteria: a review and an assessment. For Ecol Manag. 2008;255:3222–41. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2008.01.038.
Daniel M, Walter S. Evaluation of the toolkit for risk management in forest management planning. Centbl gesamte Forstwes. 2016;133:251.
Nürnberger K, Hahn A, Jörg R, Thomas K, editors. Unerwünschte Effekte der Einkommensteuergesetzgebung auf die Wahl waldbaulicher Alternativen: Eine Simulationsstudie aus der Sicht eines risikomeidenden Entscheiders: German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA); 2013.
Acknowledgments
This review is based on past and present research of the authors on diversification in forest and land-use management funded by the German Research foundation (DFG KN 586/9-1 and KN 586/11-1) and the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture of Germany (Waldklimafonds Project SURVIVAL-KW (FKZ: 28W-C-4-088-01)).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the author.
Additional information
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Forest Management
Electronic Supplementary Material
ESM 1
(DOCX 97 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Knoke, T., Messerer, K. & Paul, C. The Role of Economic Diversification in Forest Ecosystem Management. Curr Forestry Rep 3, 93–106 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-017-0054-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-017-0054-3