An assessment of forest sector modeling approaches: conceptual differences and quantitative comparison

References

• Adams DM, Latta GS. 2005. Costs and regional impacts of restoration thinning programs on the national forests in eastern Oregon. Can J For Res. 35:1319–1330. doi:10.1139/x05-065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams DM, Latta GS. 2007. Timber trends on private lands in Western Oregon and Washington: a new look. West J Appl For. 22:8–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amacher GS, Christine Conway M, Sullivan J, Gregory SA. 2003. Econometric analyses of nonindustrial forest landowners: is there anything left to study? J For Econ. 9:137–164. doi:10.1078/1104-6899-00028
   Google Scholar
• Babiker M, Gurgel A, Paltsev S, Reilly J. 2009. Forward-looking versus recursive-dynamic modeling in climate policy analysis: a comparison. Eco Model. 26:1341–1354. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2009.06.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolkesjø TF. 2004. Modeling supply, demand and trade in the Norwegian forest sector ( Dr. Scient. thesis). Agricultural University of Norway, Ås.
   Google Scholar
• Bolkesjø TF. 2012. Energimarkedene i Nord-Europa - sentrale utviklingstrekk og implikasjoner for skogsektoren [Energy markets in North Europe – key development trends and implications for the forest sector]. Skog og Tre 2012, Conference Gardermoen, Norway, May 31, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Bolkesjø TF, Baardsen S. 2002. Roundwood supply in Norway: micro-level analysis of self-employed forest owners. For Policy Econ. 4:55–64. doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(01)00081-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolkesjø TF, Buongiorno J, Solberg B. 2010. Joint production and substitution in timber supply: a panel data analysis. Appl Econ. 42:671–680. doi:10.1080/00036840701721216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolkesjø TF, Obersteiner M, Solberg B. 2003. Information technology and the newsprint demand in Western Europe: a Bayesian approach. Can J For Res. 33:1644–1652. doi:10.1139/x03-083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buongiorno J, Zhu S, Zhang D, Turner J, Tomberlin D. 2003. The global forest products model: structure, estimation, and applications. San Diego (CA): Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Caurla S, Delacote P, Lecocq F, Barkaoui A. 2013. Stimulating fuelwood consumption through public policies: an assessment of economic and resource impacts based on the French forest sector model. Energy Policy. 63:338–347. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heide KM, Holmøy E, Lerskau L, Solli IF. 2004. Macroeconomic properties of the Norwegian applied general equilibrium model MSG6 (No. Statistics Norway 2004/18). Statistics Norway.
   Google Scholar
• Hoen HF, Eid T. 1990. En modell for analyse av behandlingsalternativer for en skog ved bestandssimulering og lineær programmering [A model for analysis of treatment strategies for a forest applying standvice simulations and linear programming] (No. 9/90), Report of Norwegian Forest Research Institute. Ås, Norway.
   Google Scholar
• Hällgren J-E. 2007. Uppdrag rörande den framtida användingen av bioenergi i Sverige [Assignment regarding the future use of bioenergy in Sweden]. Faculty of Forest Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Kallio M, Dykstra D, Binkley CS. 1987. The global forest sector: an analytical perspective. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Kallio AMI, Moiseyev A, Solberg B. 2004. The global forest sector model EFI-GTM—the model structure. Internal Report No. 15. European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Latta GS, Sjølie HK, Solberg B. 2013. A review of recent developments and applications of partial equilibrium models of the forest sector. J For Econ. 19:350–360. doi:10.1016/j.jfe.2013.06.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauri P, Kallio AMI, Schneide UA. 2012. Price of CO2 emissions and use of wood in Europe. For Policy Econ. 15:123–131. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2011.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nyrud AQ. 2004. Analysing Norwegian forest management using an optimal harvesting rule. Scand J For Res. 19(Suppl 5):74–81. doi:10.1080/02827580410017870
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ronnila M. 1995. Medium-term scenarios for the Finnish pulp and paper industry (No. Working Paper WP-95–38). International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenbourg.
   Google Scholar
• Samuelson PA. 1952. Spatial price equilibrium and linear programming. Am Econ Rev. 42:283–303. doi:10.2307/1810381
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simangunsong BCH, Buongiorno J. 2001. International demand equations for forest products: a comparison of methods. Scand J For Res. 16:155–172. doi:10.1080/028275801300088242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjølie HK, Latta GS, Adams DM, Solberg B. 2011. Impacts of agent information assumptions in forest sector modeling. J For Econ. 17:169–184. doi:10.1016/j.jfe.2011.02.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjølie HK, Latta GS, Gobakken T, Solberg B. 2011. NorFor - a forest sector model of Norway. Model overview and structure (No. 18), INA report. Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway.
   Google Scholar
• Sjølie HK, Latta GS, Solberg B. 2013a. Dual discounting in climate change mitigation in the forest sector. J For Econ. 19:416–431. doi:10.1016/j.jfe.2013.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjølie HK, Latta GS, Solberg B. 2013b. Potentials and costs of climate change mitigation in the Norwegian forest sector — does choice of policy matter? Can J For Res. 43:589–598. doi:10.1139/cjfr-2012-0457
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjølie HK, Latta GS, Solberg B. 2013c. Potential impact of albedo incorporation in boreal forest sector climate change policy effectiveness. Clim. Policy. 13:665–679. doi:10.1080/14693062.2013.786302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjølie HK, Latta GS, Solberg B. 2014. Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on boreal forest climate change mitigation. Ann For Sci. 71:267–277. doi:10.1007/s13595-013-0289-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sohngen B, Sedjo R. 1996. A comparison of timber models for use in public policy analysis (Discussion Paper No. dp-96-12). Resources for the future.
   Google Scholar
• Sohngen B, Sedjo R. 1998. A comparison of timber market models: static simulation and optimal control approaches. For Sci. 44:24–36.
   Google Scholar
• Trømborg E, Sjølie HK. 2011. Data applied in forest sector analyses in the forest sector models NorFor and NTMIII (No. 17), INA report. Department of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway.
   Google Scholar
• Trømborg E, Solberg B. 1995. Beskrivelse av en partiell likevektsmodell anvendt i prosjektet “Modellanalyse av norsk skogsektor” [Description of a partial equilibrium model applied in the Project “Model analysis of Norwegian Forest Sector”] Skogforsk Research Paper 14/95. Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute, Ås, Norway.
   Google Scholar
• Xrgia. 2007. Fornybar varme 2020. Potensialstudie og analyse av framtidig utbygging av fjernvarme og lokale varmesentraler. [Renewable heat 2020. Study of potentials and analyses of future expansion of district heating and local heating centrals] Available from: http://www2.enova.no/PUBLIKASJONSOVERSIKT/file.axd?ID=256&rand=35c4be20-ff34-48e3-ae99-2b837ea4d37c
   Google Scholar