Abstract
In Norway, 84% of the productive forest is privately owned, and these forests dominate the supply of timber to industries. However, during last 80 years, annual forest growth has seen a substantial upsurge while annual timber harvest has been rather stable, generating an increasing potential for timber supply. In this study, we provide new insights to better understand Norwegian non-industrial private forest owners’ timber harvesting decisions. This was achieved by comparing the outcomes of two different statistical approaches (i.e., a combination of probit-linear models with a tobit model). These approaches are commonly applied in timber supply studies, but to the best of our knowledge have never been compared on the same dataset. The survey utilized for this study constitutes a population of Active and Inactive forest owners, based on whether the owner had harvested timber for sale during the last fifteen years. Two gross samples of 1500 and 1650 were drawn, with response rates of 56% and 49% for the Active and Inactive owner samples, respectively. The study results reveal that the average holding size varied from 25.2 ha for Inactive to 49.5 ha for both samples and 73.8 ha for Active owners. The probit model analysis indicated that knowledge of forest fund and financial objectives had the most significant impact on the willingness to harvest, with marginal effects of 11% and 12%, respectively. In the linear regression, being a female owner increased the historical timber supply by 1.48 m3 ha−1 year−1 compared to male ownership. In the second regression pathway (tobit model), the two variables female forest owner and owning forests for financial objectives triggered the supply of timber by 1.85 m3 ha−1 year−1 and 1.25 m3 ha−1 year−1, respectively. Timber prices were significant in the linear model (elasticity 1.18) and tobit model (elasticity 0.66), whereas they were non-significant in the probit model. Our study concludes that Active owners had a better understanding of acknowledging forests for economic security. Policy-makers and extension services should recognize that the Inactive forest owner group may require different actions than Active owners.
Highlights
Forest ownership structure varies significantly between countries, with about 14% of the global forest controlled by individuals or communities referred to as non-industrial private forest (NIPF) owners [1,2]
The majority of questionnaires came from male owners (75–77%) for all three classes of Inactive owners, Active owners, and all owners combined
The average holding size varied between 25.2 ha for Inactive to 49.5 ha for both samples and 73.8 ha for Active owners
Summary
Forest ownership structure varies significantly between countries, with about 14% of the global forest controlled by individuals or communities referred to as non-industrial private forest (NIPF) owners [1,2] These owners account for 40% of the total forests available for wood supply in the area covered by an assessment of temperate and boreal forest resources in 55 countries [3]. Harvest levels have increased over the last few years, while the share of owners refraining from harvest is increasing, with about half of owners not harvesting timber for sale over the last 20 years [9,12] Many of these properties are small, but together they constitute more than 20% of the productive forest area [9]. Small properties have higher productivity and larger growing stock and possess higher possibilities for increased harvest than larger properties [9,12,13]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call