A critical note on a long-running debate in forest economics

Hiley's 1927 paper in the first issue of Forestry argued thateconomics was not just a theoretical discipline, but affectedforestry practice. The long rotations desired by proponentsof forest rental ignored forest capital. Soil rental gave arational basis for choosing silvicultural regime and costingdeviations from the most profitable option. Heavy thinning offeredcompromise between outcomes desired by forest and soil rentalschools. Although Hiley's ideas have influenced British forestry,the forest rental caseis still argued. Development of monetizingtechniques has undermined Hiley's belief that non-market benefitswere ‘imponderable’. It remains importantto separatefour issues: choice of discount rate, treatment of non-marketeffects, construction of performance criteria, and selectionof silvicultural regime.