Eliminating Illegal Timber Consumption or Production: Which Is the More Economical Means to Reduce Illegal Logging?
1
College of Economics and Management, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China
2
Research Center for Economics and Trade in Forest Products of the State Forestry Administration, Nanjing 210037, China
3
Research Institute of Forestry Policy and Information, China Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Thomas J. Straka and Eric J. Jokela
Forests 2016, 7(9), 191; https://doi.org/10.3390/f7090191
Received: 26 April 2016 / Revised: 29 July 2016 / Accepted: 24 August 2016 / Published: 29 August 2016
Illegal logging, with its related trade of illegally harvested timber, is one of the main environmental and economic problems worldwide. Eliminating illegal timber consumption and production are two practical means to reduce illegal logging. However, the problem of determining which of the two means is more economical remains to be analyzed. In this study, an input–output analysis was conducted to evaluate the consumption and production of illegal timber in different countries. The Global Forest Products Model (GFPM) was employed to analyze the effects of eliminating illegal timber consumption and production on the added value of the forest sector at global and national levels. Results indicated that eliminating illegal timber production is more economical than eliminating consumption at the global level. The former is estimated to decrease the added value of the global forest sector only by 3.37% compared to 7.31% by the latter in 2030. Eliminating the production of illegal timber will result in uneven distribution of social wealth in the forest sector, and will pass the cost of reducing illegal logging onto developing countries. Developed countries would gain more added value and market scale than the global average, whereas developing countries would suffer a loss if illegal timber production is eliminated. Hence, developed countries are encouraged to provide financial support to help developing countries reduce illegal logging.
View Full-Text
Keywords:
illegal logging; eliminating consumption; eliminating production; added value; input–output analysis; GFPM
▼
Show Figures
Figure 1
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited
- Supplementary File 1:
Supplementary (ZIP, 12056 KiB)
MDPI and ACS Style
Zhang, X.; Xu, B.; Wang, L.; Yang, A.; Yang, H. Eliminating Illegal Timber Consumption or Production: Which Is the More Economical Means to Reduce Illegal Logging? Forests 2016, 7, 191. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7090191
AMA Style
Zhang X, Xu B, Wang L, Yang A, Yang H. Eliminating Illegal Timber Consumption or Production: Which Is the More Economical Means to Reduce Illegal Logging? Forests. 2016; 7(9):191. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7090191
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhang, Xiaobiao; Xu, Bin; Wang, Lei; Yang, Aijun; Yang, Hongqiang. 2016. "Eliminating Illegal Timber Consumption or Production: Which Is the More Economical Means to Reduce Illegal Logging?" Forests 7, no. 9: 191. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7090191
Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
Search more from Scilit
