IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v204y2023ipas0921800922002932.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The costs and benefits of conservation versus logging of old-growth native forest: A case history

Author

Listed:
  • King, Carolyn

Abstract

Pureora Forest Park is one of the largest remaining and most ecologically and culturally significant areas of the native forest that once clothed almost all the North Island of New Zealand. Systematic logging and the establishment of sawmilling villages began in the Pureora area in the late 1940s. Concern about the effects of logging of virgin forest on native fauna accelerated until 1978, when a widely publicised tree-sitting protest led to a forced moratorium. The settlement that followed stopped the logging, closed the sawmills, and caused mass local unemployment and social conflict. The long-term solution required an integrated approach, reconciling the needs of economic resource utilisation with those of social welfare and biodiversity conservation. This paper describes the processes leading up to the unprecedented financial settlement that saved the forest, plus the details of the compensation package paid to timber companies for broken contracts, and the consequent benefits for conservation and tourism.

Suggested Citation

  • King, Carolyn, 2023. "The costs and benefits of conservation versus logging of old-growth native forest: A case history," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:204:y:2023:i:pa:s0921800922002932
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107632
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800922002932
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107632?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kniivilä, Matleena & Ovaskainen, Ville & Saastamoinen, Olli & Kniivilä, Matleena, 2002. "Costs and benefits of forest conservation: regional and local comparisons in Eastern Finland," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 131-150.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sirgmets, Risto & Kaimre, Paavo & Padari, Allar, 2011. "Economic impact of enlarging the area of protected forests in Estonia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 155-158, March.
    2. Ding, Helen & Chiabai, Aline & Silvestri, Silvia & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D., 2016. "Valuing climate change impacts on European forest ecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 141-153.
    3. Barrio, Melina & Loureiro, Maria L., 2010. "A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1023-1030, March.
    4. Lindhjem, Henrik, 2007. "20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 251-277, February.
    5. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2011. "Identifying the scope effect on a meta-analysis of biodiversity valuation studies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 706-724, September.
    6. Moritz A. Drupp & Zachary M. Turk & Ben Groom & Jonas Heckenhahn, 2023. "Limited substitutability, relative price changes and the uplifting of public natural capital values," Papers 2308.04400, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    7. Ovaskainen, Ville & Kniivila, Matleena, 2005. "Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(4), pages 1-16.
    8. Rosenkranz, Lydia & Seintsch, Björn & Wippel, Bernd & Dieter, Matthias, 2014. "Income losses due to the implementation of the Habitats Directive in forests — Conclusions from a case study in Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 207-218.
    9. Walker, Susan H. & Rideout, Douglas B. & Loomis, John B. & Reich, Robin, 2007. "Comparing the value of fuel treatment options in northern Colorado's urban and wildland-urban interface areas," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(6), pages 694-703, February.
    10. Aline Chiabai & Chiara Travisi & Anil Markandya & Helen Ding & Paulo Nunes, 2011. "Economic Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Services Losses: Cost of Policy Inaction," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 405-445, November.
    11. Koskela, Erkki & Ollikainen, Markku & Pukkala, Timo, 2007. "Biodiversity policies in commercial boreal forests: Optimal design of subsidy and tax combinations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 982-995, May.
    12. Wilson, Jeffrey J. & Lantz, Van A. & MacLean, David A., 2010. "A benefit-cost analysis of establishing protected natural areas in New Brunswick, Canada," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 94-103, February.
    13. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L. & Alló, Maria & Barrio, Melina, 2016. "Ecosystem Services and REDD: Estimating the Benefits of Non-Carbon Services in Worldwide Forests," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 246-261.
    14. Ville Ovaskainen & Matleena Kniivilä, 2005. "Consumer versus citizen preferences in contingent valuation: evidence on the role of question framing," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(4), pages 379-394, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:204:y:2023:i:pa:s0921800922002932. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.