Multiple-use forestry vs. forestland-use specialization revisited

Based on the comparative advantages of forestland in providing a variety of products and services, it is not arguable that different kinds of forestland should produce different compositions of outputs. To investigate the issue regarding forestland-use specialization or the pursuit of multiple uses on same piece of land, this paper starts by revisiting Vincent and Binkley's paper 'Efficient Multiple-Use Forestry May Require Land-Use Specialization' (see Land Economics 69 (3):370-376. I would like to argue that their reasoning may not be entirely correct, but their conclusions may be right for the following reasons: (1) the constraints of input factors (including time), (2) cross-spatial interaction, (3) changes in technology and relative prices and (4) ecological and economic thresholds of production and management. Some evidence related to and trends in forestland-use specialization from New Zealand, the USA, Canada and China are presented. It is suggested that to promote forestland-use specialization, it is necessary to re-allocate research funding, to implement various sustainable forest management criteria and forest ownership reforms, to zone land for priority use, and to promote market development.