PRODUCTION ECONOMICS OF PRIVATE FORESTRY - A COMPARISON OF INDUSTRIAL AND NONINDUSTRIAL FOREST OWNERS

被引:108
作者
NEWMAN, DH
WEAR, DN
机构
[1] Warned School of Forest Re­sources, The University of Georgia, USDA Forest Service
关键词
DUALITY; FOREST PRODUCTION; RESTRICTED PROFIT FUNCTIONS; TIMBER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ELASTICITIES;
D O I
10.2307/1243574
中图分类号
F3 [农业经济];
学科分类号
0202 ; 020205 ; 1203 ;
摘要
This paper compares the production behavior of industrial and nonindustrial private forestland owners in the southeastern U.S. using a restricted profit function. Profits are modeled as a function of two outputs, sawtimber and pulpwood, one variable input, regeneration effort, and two quasi-fixed inputs, land and growing stock. Although an identical profit function is rejected, the results indicate behavior consistent with profit-maximizing motives under both ownerships. The two ownerships have similar responses to input and output price changes, both in the short-run and in the long-run. However, nonindustrial owners appear to place a higher value on their standing timber and forestland than do industrial owners. The difference in estimated shadow values indicates that significant nonmarket benefits are being captured by nonindustrial owners and the benefits are reflected in their production behavior.
引用
收藏
页码:674 / 684
页数:11
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]  
ADAMS DM, 1980, FOREST SCI MONOGRAPH, V22
[2]   CORPORATE CHOICE AMONG LONG-TERM FINANCING INSTRUMENTS [J].
BAXTER, ND ;
CRAGG, JG .
REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, 1970, 52 (03) :225-235
[3]  
BINKLEY CS, 1981, ENV STUD B, V92
[5]  
Boyd R., 1989, FORESTRY SECTOR INTE
[6]  
CLAWSON M, R14 RES FUT RES PAP
[7]   PRINCIPLES AND POLICY IN FORESTRY ECONOMICS [J].
COMOLLI, PM .
BELL JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 1981, 12 (01) :300-309
[8]  
DENNIS DF, 1989, FOREST SCI, V35, P1088
[9]  
DESTEIGUER JE, 1982, J FOREST, V80, P214
[10]   CONFIDENCE-INTERVALS FOR ELASTICITIES AND FLEXIBILITIES - REEVALUATING THE RATIOS OF NORMALS CASE [J].
DORFMAN, JH ;
KLING, CL ;
SEXTON, RJ .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 1990, 72 (04) :1006-1017