IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v10y2008i5p326-335.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A marginal cost analysis of trade-offs in old-growth preservation in Ontario

Author

Listed:
  • Khajuria, Rajendra Prasad
  • Laaksonen-Craig, Susanna
  • Kant, Shashi

Abstract

The paper examines the economic impacts of sustainable forest management (SFM) policies in Canada. Specifically, the marginal costs (MC) of old-growth preservation in an even-aged boreal forest in northeastern Ontario are examined under the condition that forest managers need to achieve multiple objectives for SFM. Furthermore, the trade-offs of old-growth preservation are estimated, allowing the levels of three specific SFM objectives to vary, namely, providing a consistent supply of timber in each period, meeting terminal volume targets at the end of the planning horizon, and maintaining a desired age structure of the forest. MCs are higher for harvesting regimes constrained by SFM objectives compared with that in which only profit maximization is considered. We observed that MCs for these three scenarios varied more when the area allotted for old-growth preservation is small. When the area of protected old-growth forest reaches about 66% of the maximum possible, the MCs are almost the same. All MCs are iso-elastic. The even-flow volume per period has the highest marginal cost among the three cases. If managers choose to provide terminal volume that is greater than or equal to the initial volume, instead of a lesser terminal volume, then old-growth forest can be preserved at no extra cost. The study emphasizes the need for integrated and simultaneous achievement of complementary goals of SFM for better economic return and minimization of the negative economic impact of SFM on the forestry sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Khajuria, Rajendra Prasad & Laaksonen-Craig, Susanna & Kant, Shashi, 2008. "A marginal cost analysis of trade-offs in old-growth preservation in Ontario," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(5), pages 326-335, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:10:y:2008:i:5:p:326-335
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389-9341(07)00103-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claire A. Montgomery & Greg S. Latta & Darius M. Adams, 2006. "The Cost of Achieving Old-Growth Forest Structure," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 240-256.
    2. Montgomery, Claire A. & Pollak, Robert A. & Freemark, Kathryn & White, Denis, 1999. "Pricing Biodiversity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 1-19, July.
    3. Eid, Tron & Fredrik Hoen, Hans & Okseter, Petter, 2002. "Timber production possibilities of the Norwegian forest area and measures for a sustainable forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(3), pages 187-200, July.
    4. Englin, Jeffrey & Mendelsohn, Robert, 1991. "A hedonic travel cost analysis for valuation of multiple components of site quality: The recreation value of forest management," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 275-290, November.
    5. Daniel A. Haqen & James W. Vincent & Patrick G. Welle, 1992. "Benefits Of Preserving Old‐Growth Forests And The Spotted Owl," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 10(2), pages 13-26, April.
    6. Zhou, Wenchao & Gong, Peichen, 2004. "Economic effects of environmental concerns in forest management: an analysis of the cost of achieving environmental goals," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 97-113, September.
    7. N. D. Hanley & R. J. Ruffell, 1993. "The Contingent Valuation Of Forest Characteristics: Two Experiments," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 218-229, May.
    8. Reed, William J., 1993. "The decision to conserve or harvest old-growth forest," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 45-69, August.
    9. Loomis, John B. & Gonzalez-Caban, Armando, 1998. "A willingness-to-pay function for protecting acres of spotted owl habitat from fire," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 315-322, June.
    10. Montgomery Claire A. & Brown Jr. , Gardner M. & Adams Darius M., 1994. "The Marginal Cost of Species Preservation: The Northern Spotted Owl," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 111-128, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wilson, Jeffrey J. & Lantz, Van A. & MacLean, David A., 2010. "A benefit-cost analysis of establishing protected natural areas in New Brunswick, Canada," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 94-103, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rose, Steven K. & Chapman, Duane, 2003. "Timber harvest adjacency economies, hunting, species protection, and old growth value: seeking the dynamic optimum," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 325-344, March.
    2. N. Wear, David & Murray, Brian C., 2004. "Federal timber restrictions, interregional spillovers, and the impact on US softwood markets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 307-330, March.
    3. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    4. Polasky, Stephen & Costello, Christopher & Solow, Andrew, 2005. "The Economics of Biodiversity," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 29, pages 1517-1560, Elsevier.
    5. Richard Yao & Pamela Kaval, 2008. "Valuing Biodiversity Enhancement in New Zealand," Working Papers in Economics 08/07, University of Waikato.
    6. Cullen, Ross & Moran, Emma & Hughey, Kenneth F.D., 2005. "Measuring the success and cost effectiveness of New Zealand multiple-species projects to the conservation of threatened species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 311-323, May.
    7. Artti Juutinen & Mikko Mönkkönen, 2007. "Alternative targets and economic efficiency of selecting protected areas for biodiversity conservation in boreal forest," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(4), pages 713-732, August.
    8. Wilson, Jeffrey J. & Lantz, Van A. & MacLean, David A., 2010. "A benefit-cost analysis of establishing protected natural areas in New Brunswick, Canada," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 94-103, February.
    9. Polasky, Stephen & Costello, Christopher & McAusland, Carol, 2004. "On trade, land-use, and biodiversity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 911-925, September.
    10. Nalle, Darek J. & Montgomery, Claire A. & Arthur, Jeffrey L. & Polasky, Stephen & Schumaker, Nathan H., 2004. "Modeling joint production of wildlife and timber," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 997-1017, November.
    11. Baerenklau, Kenneth A. & González-Cabán, Armando & Paez, Catrina & Chavez, Edgar, 2010. "Spatial allocation of forest recreation value," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 113-126, April.
    12. Ferris, Ann E. & Frank, Eyal G., 2021. "Labor market impacts of land protection: The Northern Spotted Owl," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    13. Englin, Jeffrey E. & McDonald, Jered M. & Moeltner, Klaus, 2006. "Valuing ancient forest ecosystems: An analysis of backcountry hiking in Jasper National Park," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 665-678, June.
    14. Daniel McKenney, 1998. "Resource Economists Should Do More Cost Analysis and Less Benefit Analysis," Working Papers in Ecological Economics 9801, Australian National University, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Ecological Economics Program.
    15. Göran Bostedt, 1999. "Threatened Species as Public Goods and Public Bads," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(1), pages 59-73, January.
    16. Dyar, Julie A. & Wagner, Jeffrey, 2003. "Uncertainty and species recovery program design," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2, Supple), pages 505-522, March.
    17. Haddock, Janet & Tzanopoulos, Joseph & Mitchley, Jonathan & Fraser, Rob, 2007. "A method for evaluating alternative landscape management scenarios in relation to the biodiversity conservation of habitats," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 277-283, March.
    18. Stephen Polasky & Jeffrey D. Camm & Brian Garber-Yonts, 2001. "Selecting Biological Reserves Cost-Effectively: An Application to Terrestrial Vertebrate Conservation in Oregon," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(1), pages 68-78.
    19. Cullen, Ross & Fairburn, Geoffrey A. & Hughey, Kenneth F. D., 2001. "Measuring the productivity of threatened-species programs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 53-66, October.
    20. Matthew Potts & Jeffrey Vincent, 2008. "Spatial distribution of species populations, relative economic values, and the optimal size and number of reserves," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(2), pages 91-112, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:10:y:2008:i:5:p:326-335. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.