Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36712582›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental & resource economics2023

Assessing the Economic Resilience of Different Management Systems to Severe Forest Disturbance.

Thomas Knoke, Carola Paul, Elizabeth Gosling, Isabelle Jarisch, Johannes Mohr, Rupert Seidl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental & resource economics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Thomas KnokeInstitute of Forest Management, Department of Life Science Systems, TUM School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0535-5946
Carola PaulDepartment of Forest Economics and Sustainable Land-Use Planning, University of Goettingen, 37077 Göttingen, Germany.
Elizabeth GoslingInstitute of Forest Management, Department of Life Science Systems, TUM School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany.
Isabelle JarischInstitute of Forest Management, Department of Life Science Systems, TUM School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany.
Johannes MohrInstitute of Forest Management, Department of Life Science Systems, TUM School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany.
Rupert SeidlEcosystem Dynamics and Forest Management Group, Department of Life Science Systems, TUM School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Given the drastic changes in the environment, resilience is a key focus of ecosystem management. Yet, the quantification of the different dimensions of resilience remains challenging, particularly for long-lived systems such as forests. Here we present an analytical framework to study the economic resilience of different forest management systems, focusing on the rate of economic recovery after severe disturbance. Our framework quantifies the post-disturbance gain in the present value of a forest relative to a benchmark system as an indicator of economic resilience. Forest values and silvicultural interventions were determined endogenously from an optimization model and account for risks affecting tree survival. We consider the effects of differences in forest structure and tree growth post disturbance on economic resilience. We demonstrate our approach by comparing the economic resilience of continuous cover forestry against a clear fell system for typical conditions in Central Europe. Continuous cover forestry had both higher economic return and higher economic resilience than the clear fell system. The economic recovery from disturbance in the continuous cover system was between 18.2 and 51.5% faster than in the clear fell system, resulting in present value gains of between 1733 and 4535 € ha

Indexed as

Close to nature forestryContinuous cover forestryDisturbance economicsEngineering resilienceForest valuePresent valueTree mortalityWillingness to pay for forestland

Identifiers

PMID36712582
PMCPMC9876879

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.