Ranking of four contributions to error in stand-level Douglas-fir log supply and value recovery estimation

Sustainability and globally competitive forest product supply markets are two of the pressures that forest managers face today. Both require that managers have good metrics of the quantity, quality, and location of timber resources within their forests. The value of this information must be weighed against the cost of obtaining it and losses associated with not having access to it. A cost-plus-loss procedure for assessing the relative contributions to error in estimating stand-level value recovery and log product yields was developed and tested on two Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) stands in Oregon. The sources of error were those associated with (i) market complexity, (ii) sampling intensity, (iii) stem quality assessment methods, and (iv) bucking optimization algorithms. Two performance measures were used as part of the assessment procedure: market fulfilment and the difference in total net value recovery between having complete and less than complete information. Average market fulfilment ranged between 60% and 100%. The difference in total net value recovery ranged from -21.2% to +0.8%. Stem quality assessment followed by bucking optimization algorithms and sampling intensity had the greatest effects on these performance measures. Market complexity had a negligible effect on these performance measures but affected net value recovery.