The profitability of artificial and natural regeneration: A forest investment comparison of Poland and the U.S. South

Main Article Content

Rafał Chudy
Frederick Cubbage
Jacek Siry
Jacek Chudy


regeneration, silviculture, forest investments, profitability, IRR


The historical development of silviculture has been closely related to an increasing need for timber, which resulted in more planted forests and artificial regeneration over time. The idea of natural regeneration through shelterwood cutting was often not accepted by forest owners as a management practice because of inadequate financial returns and less certain outcomes. Despite the evolving dominance of planted forests, questions remain if the lower costs of natural regeneration may still provide sufficient profitability of forest investments. In this paper, the profitability of planted versus natural forest management in Poland and the U.S. South was examined. A discounted cash flow model was developed to evaluate the profitability of artificial and natural regeneration in hypothetical Scots and loblolly pine stands in Poland and the U.S. South, respectively, and hardwood stands (dominated by oak spp.) in both countries. The results have shown that for both countries and species, natural regeneration regimes produce higher internal rates of return (IRR), largely due to less expensive establishment costs. The largest difference in returns is observed for hardwood in the US South (97 basis points, bps, or almost 1 percentage point), followed by pine in the US South (84 bps) and pine and hardwood in Poland (both ca. 70 bps).  Southern pines in the U.S. South may have larger net present values (NPV) at moderate discount rates, as well as provide more certain wood production outcomes, which have contributed to their pervasive adoption.  We conclude that natural stand forest management, in addition to better rates of return, may bring other non-financial benefits (e.g., genetic diversity, resilience), which may support forest owners and the environment, especially under changing climate conditions. Nevertheless, the regeneration method and its feasibility and profitability should be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis for each forest investment.

Abstract 568 | View Full Text Downloads 0 Download PDF Downloads 224


Adamowicz K, Kaciunka H. 2014. Evaluating variation in logged timber costs and raw timber prices during the period, 2001-2009, for the Regional Directorate of the State Forests in Zielona Góra. Lesn Pr Badaw. 75(1):55-60.

Ankudo-Jankowska A, Tutka A. 2014. Ocena ekonomicznej efektywności zabiegów trzebieżowych w drzewostanach sosnowych na przykładzie Nadleśnictwa Bogdaniec [Assessment of the economic effectiveness of thinning treatments in pine stands on the example of the Bogdaniec Forest District]. Acta Sci Pol Silv Colendar Rat Ind Lignar. 13(3):5-18.

Bennett BM. 2015. Plantations and protected areas: A global history of forest management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bis A. 2009. Economic analysis of coniferous silviculture in Poland. Profitability comparison between Poland and Lithuania. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Master Thesis no. 129. Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Alnarp 2009.

Brown MJ. 2004. Forest statistics for North Carolina, 2002. Resour. Bull. SRS-68. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Statio. 78 p.

BULiGL. 2020. Wielkoobszarowa inwentaryzacja stanu lasu. Wyniki III cyklu (2015-2019) [Large-scale inventory of the state of the forest. Third cycle results (2015-2019)]. Downloaded from:

Chudy R, Chudy KA, Kanieski da Silva B, Cubbage FW, Rubilar R, Lord R. 2020. Profitability and risk sources in global timberland investments. For Policy Econ. 111.

Chudy R, Cubbage FW. 2020. Research Trends: Forest investments as a financial asset class. J For Policy Econ. 119(June):1-9.

Chudy R, Stevanov M, Krott M. 2016. Strategic options for state forest institutions in Poland: evaluation by the 3L model and ways ahead. Int For Rev. 18(4).

Cubbage F, Donagh P Mac, Balmelli G, Olmos VM, Bussoni A, Rubilar R, Torre RD La, Lord R, Huang J, Hoeflich VA, et al. 2014. Global timber investments and trends, 2005-2011. New Zeal J For Sci. 44(Suppl 1):2005-2011.

Cubbage F, Kanieski B, Rubilar R, Bussoni A, Olmos VM, Balmelli G, Donagh P Mac, Lord R, Hernández C, Zhang P, et al. 2020. Global timber investments, 2005 to 2017. For Policy Econ. 112(April 2019):102082.

Cubbage FW, Gunter JE, Olson JT. 1991. Reforestation economics, law, and taxation. Springer, Dordrecht. p. 9-31.

Dangerfield CW, Edwards MB. 1991. Economic comparison of natural and planted regeneration of loblolly pine. South J Appl For. 15(3):125-127.

DGLP. 2020. Sprawozdanie finansowo-gospodarcze za 2019 rok. Dyrekcja Generalna Lasów Państwowych [Financial and economic report 2019. General Directorate of State Forests]. Downloaded from:

Długosiewicz J, Zając S, Wysocka−Fijorek E. 2019. Ekonomiczna efektywność naturalnego i sztucznego odnowienia drzewostanów sosnowych w Nadleśnictwie Nowa Dęba [Economic efficiency of natural and artificial regeneration of pine stands in the Nowa Dęba Forest District]. Sylwan. 163(5):373−384.

Evans MC, Carwardine J, Fensham RJ, Butler DW, Wilson KA, Possingham HP, Martin TG. 2015. Carbon farming via assisted natural regeneration as a cost-effective mechanism for restoring biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Environ Sci Policy. 50:114-129.

Faustmann M. 1849. Berechnung des Werthes, welchen Waldboden, sowie noch nicht haubare Holzbestände für die Waldwirthschaft besitzen [Calculation of the value which forest land and immature stands possess for forestry]. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagd-Zeitung, Dec. 1849, 441-451.

FRED. 2019. Foreign exchange rates and US consumer price index. Available from:

Gustafsson L, Bauhus J, Asbeck T, Augustynczik ALD, Basile M, Frey J, Gutzat F, Hanewinkel M, Helbach J, Jonker M, et al. 2020. Retention as an integrated biodiversity conservation approach for continuous-cover forestry in Europe. Ambio. 49(1):85-97.

James NDG. 1996. A history of forestry and monographic forestry literature in Germany, France and the United Kingdom. In: McDonald P, Lassoie J, editors. The Literature of Forestry and Agroforestry. New York: Cornell University Press. Ithaka. p. 15-44.

Johann E. 2006. Historical development of nature-based forestry in Central Europe. In: Diaci J, editor. Nature-based forestry in Central Europe. Alternatives to industrial forestry and strict preservation. Studia Forestalia Slovenica Nr. 126. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana. p. 178.

Kaliszewski A. 2018. Cost analysis of artificial and natural oak regeneration in selected forest districts. For Res Pap. 78(4):315-321.

Kancelaria Sejmu. 1991. Ustawa z dnia 28 września 1991 r. o lasach [Act of September 28, 1991 on forests] (Dz.U. z 2020 r. poz. 6).

Kuuluvainen T, Lindberg H, Vanha-Majamaa I, Keto-Tokoi P, Punttila P. 2019. Low-level retention forestry, certification, and biodiversity: case Finland. Ecol Process. 8(1).

Lula M, Trubins R, Ekö PM, Johansson U, Nilsson U. 2021. Modelling effects of regeneration method on the growth and profitability of Scots pine stands. Scand J For Res. 36(4):263-274.

Möhring B. 2001. The German struggle between the "Bodenreinertragslehre" (land rent theory) and "Waldreinertragslehre" (theory of the highest revenue) belongs to the past - But what is left? For Policy Econ. 2(2):195-201.

North Carolina Forest Service. 2020. FDP prevailing rates, 2020. Available from: [accessed 31 December 2020].

Oswalt SN, Smith WB, Miles PD, Pugh SA. 2014. Forest resources of the United States, 2012: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2015 update of the RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-91. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. 218 p.

Paluš H, Krahulcov M, Parobek J. 2021. Assessment of forest certification as a tool to support forest ecosystem services. Forests. 12(300):1-16.

Piekutin J, Kłapeć B, Orzechowski M. 2015. Density of forest road network - economic point of view. Sylwan. 159(3):179−187.

Prestemon JP, Abt RW. 2002. Timber products supply and demand. p. 299-325. In: Southern Forest Resource assessment. Gen. tech. rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: USDA Foest Service, Southern Research Station.

Siry JP, Newman DH. 2001. A Stochastic production frontier analysis of Polish State Forests. For Sci. 47(4):526-533.

Siry JP, Robison DJ, Cubbage FW. 2004. Economic returns model for silvicultural investments in young hardwood stands. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 28(4):179-184.

State Forests. 2019. Portal Leśno-Drzewny [Forest and Timber Portal]. Informacja o sprzedaży wybranych grup sortymentów drewna w nadleśnictwach w latach 2015-2019 [Information on the sale of selected groups of wood assortments in forest districts in 2015-2019]. Available from:

Statistics Poland. 2019. Statistical Yearbook of Forestry. Available from:

TimberMart-South. 2020. Timber and timberland market data. Also available at North Carolina Cooperative Extension. Available from:

World Bank. 2019. Consumer price index (2010 = 100). International Monetary Fund. Available from:

Zając S, Kaliszewski A. 2014. Ekonomiczne aspekty ekologizacji zagospodarowania lasu [Economic aspects of ecological forest management] Prezentation during VI Sesja Zimowej Szkoły Leśnej, Sękocin Stary, 18-20 marca 2014 r.

Most read articles by the same author(s)