Möllmann, Torsten B.

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","78"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Forest Policy and Economics"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","89"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","73"],["dc.contributor.author","Sauter, Philipp A."],["dc.contributor.author","Moellmann, Torsten B."],["dc.contributor.author","Anastassiadis, Friederike"],["dc.contributor.author","Musshoff, Oliver"],["dc.contributor.author","Moehring, Bernhard"],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T10:05:29Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T10:05:29Z"],["dc.date.issued","2016"],["dc.description.abstract","Natural catastrophes in forests have become more damaging in recent years and are expected to further increase according to climate change scenarios. Currently, governmental measures mostly focus on providing financial support, such as direct payments, to forest owners after disasters. However, in the light of more weather extremes, this could lead to a heavier financial burden for national budgets. Therefore, the current financial support system has to be reconsidered with regard to privatizing foresters' risks. Insurance could play a key role, but in many countries forests are rarely insured. In order to explain insurance coverage, we analyzed foresters' preferences regarding fire and storm insurance, which are expressed as their willingness-to-pay (WTP). Therefore, we measured the risk attitude and conducted a discrete choice experiment with 137 German foresters, using various policy and forest enterprise scenarios. Our results show that most foresters have a very low WTP for insurance, and individual risk attitude was not of significant influence. The WTP was higher for fire than for storm insurance, presumably due to liquidity preservation motives. Policy programs involving unconditional support after disaster reduced the WTP. Instead, subsidized insurance premiums increased the WTP and thus, should be considered to establish an efficient insurance market. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved."],["dc.description.sponsorship","Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG); Waldklimafonds"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.forpol.2016.08.005"],["dc.identifier.isi","000388059900009"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/38901"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Elsevier Science Bv"],["dc.relation.issn","1872-7050"],["dc.relation.issn","1389-9341"],["dc.title","To insure or not to insure? Analysis of foresters' willingness-to-pay for fire and storm insurance"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","116"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","5-6"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","ALLGEMEINE FORST UND JAGDZEITUNG"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","124"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","186"],["dc.contributor.author","Hechtner, Frank"],["dc.contributor.author","Kruschwitz, Lutz"],["dc.contributor.author","Loeffler, Andreas"],["dc.contributor.author","Moellmann, Torsten B."],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T10:03:02Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T10:03:02Z"],["dc.date.issued","2015"],["dc.identifier.isi","000359967900004"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/38361"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","J D Sauerlaenders Verlag"],["dc.relation.issn","0002-5852"],["dc.title","Faustmann and the Influence of Controls"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.firstpage","97"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Forest Policy and Economics"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.lastpage","104"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","38"],["dc.contributor.author","Giessen, Lukas"],["dc.contributor.author","Krott, Max"],["dc.contributor.author","Moellmann, Torsten B."],["dc.date.accessioned","2018-11-07T09:46:37Z"],["dc.date.available","2018-11-07T09:46:37Z"],["dc.date.issued","2014"],["dc.description.abstract","This article analyses the representation of selected countries (EU-27 and the five influential \"forest states\") to international forest-related negotiations by national utilitarian vis-a-vis conservation-oriented ministerial bureaucracies. It is hypothesised that due to the bureaucracies' informal goal of gaining and maintaining responsibility over political issues, mainly ministries of agriculture including forestry and ministries of environment are competing for the task of representing states in international forest and forest-environmental negotiations. A survey design based on a semi-structured questionnaire was used to study the bureaucratic representation of the selected states to the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) and to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) negotiations between 2000 and 2011. The results show that in the processes under study the representation of states by utilitarian types of bureaucracies is rather increasing, while the role of conservationist bureaucracies is declining. Likewise, the roles of ministries of foreign affairs and economic affairs are declining, while hybrid organisations on agriculture/environment were observed being on a strong increase. Under CBD negotiations the vast majority of responding countries was represented by environmental bureaucracies, while agricultural ones played a marginal role. In contrast, under UNFF negotiations countries were represented by agricultural, economic and hybrid agricultural/environmental bureaucracies in approx. equal shares. Agricultural bureaucracies especially gained influence under UNFF negotiations during the study period. The article concludes on these trends also highlighting options for future research. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved."],["dc.description.sponsorship","German Research Foundation (DFG) [GI 871/2-1]"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1016/j.forpol.2013.08.008"],["dc.identifier.isi","000330819400013"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/34915"],["dc.notes.status","zu prüfen"],["dc.notes.submitter","Najko"],["dc.publisher","Elsevier Science Bv"],["dc.relation.issn","1872-7050"],["dc.relation.issn","1389-9341"],["dc.title","Increasing representation of states by utilitarian as compared to environmental bureaucracies in international forest and forest-environmental policy negotiations"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dc.type.peerReviewed","yes"],["dc.type.status","published"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]

[["dc.bibliographiccitation.issue","4"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.journal","Annals of Forest Science"],["dc.bibliographiccitation.volume","74"],["dc.contributor.author","Möllmann, Torsten B."],["dc.contributor.author","Möhring, Bernhard"],["dc.date.accessioned","2020-12-10T14:14:41Z"],["dc.date.available","2020-12-10T14:14:41Z"],["dc.date.issued","2017"],["dc.identifier.doi","10.1007/s13595-017-0670-x"],["dc.identifier.eissn","1297-966X"],["dc.identifier.issn","1286-4560"],["dc.identifier.uri","https://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?gro-2/71449"],["dc.language.iso","en"],["dc.notes.intern","DOI Import GROB-354"],["dc.title","A practical way to integrate risk in forest management decisions"],["dc.type","journal_article"],["dc.type.internalPublication","yes"],["dspace.entity.type","Publication"]]