IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v14y1990i3p227-246.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Efficiency of Forest Tree Improvement Programs in the North Central Region

Author

Listed:
  • Jeffrey C. Stier

    (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Abstract

An ex ante benefit-cost analysts was conducted of applied tree improvement programs in the North Central Region through the year 2030. The analysis covered 19 species used to produce timber, 4 species used for Christmas trees, and sugar maple used for sap production. Gross benefits of tree cmprovement were defined to be the drscounted increase in net value due to the higher productivity of improved stock when managed on identical rotations as unimproved stock, and costs were defined to be the present value of expenditures necessary to establish and operate seed orchards. The aggregate benefit-cost ratio for all species throughout the region was estimated to be 19.5 at 4%, with net benefits of $187 million. Of all net benefits, 90% stem from work with Chrtstmas trees, but the aggregate benefit-cost ratco for timber species is 2.8. Differences exist in the estimated efficiency of programs among states, but in general, states have focused their efforts on species with the greatest economic potential. Returns are greatest for species with short rotations and high product value that are planted in large numbers and that produce seed in large volume and reliably, characteristics which favor softwoods over hardwoods. Despite a professional and institutional climate that encourages long-term view points, forestry professionals have considerable difficulty expressing confidence in biological forecasts over even a few decades. This makes ex ante evaluation of forest tree improvement programs difficult, but the intuition of the scientists appears to have efficiency considerations built into it.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeffrey C. Stier, 1990. "Economic Efficiency of Forest Tree Improvement Programs in the North Central Region," Evaluation Review, , vol. 14(3), pages 227-246, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:14:y:1990:i:3:p:227-246
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9001400301
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X9001400301
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X9001400301?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. C. Richard Shumway, 1981. "Subjectivity in Ex Ante Research Evaluation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 63(1), pages 169-173.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Araji, A. A. & White, F. C. & Guenthner, J. F., 1994. "Return To Potato Research," A.E. Research Series 305115, University of Idaho, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.
    2. De Marinis, Pietro & Sali, Guido, 2020. "Participatory analytic hierarchy process for resource allocation in agricultural development projects," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    3. David N. Bengston & H. Fred Kaiser, 1988. "Research Planning and Evaluation in the U.S. Forest Service," Evaluation Review, , vol. 12(3), pages 276-290, June.
    4. Hardaker, J. Brian & Anderson, Jock R. & Dillon, John L., 1984. "Perspectives On Assessing The Impacts Of Improved Agricultural Technologies In Developing Countries," Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 28(2-3), pages 1-22, August.
    5. Biggs SD. & Clay EJ., 1983. "Generation and diffusion of agricultural technology: a review of theories and experiences," ILO Working Papers 992260213402676, International Labour Organization.
    6. Randall, Alan, 1982. "Policy Science In The Land-Grant Complex: A Perspective On Natural Resource Economics," Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-8, July.
    7. Michael Harris & Alan Lloyd, 1991. "The Returns to Agricultural Research and the Underinvestment Hypothesis ‐ A Survey," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 24(3), pages 16-27, July.
    8. Kuehne, Geoff & Nicholson, Cam & Robertson, Michael & Llewellyn, Rick & McDonald, Cam, 2012. "Engaging project proponents in R&D evaluation using bio-economic and socio-economic tools," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 94-103.
    9. repec:ilo:ilowps:226021 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Pannell, D. J., 1999. "On the estimation of on-farm benefits of agricultural research," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 123-134, August.

    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:sae:evarev:v:14:y:1990:i:3:p:227-246. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.