IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_857.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A General Approach to the Stochastic Rotation Problem with Amenity Valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Luis H. R. Alvarez
  • Erkki Koskela

Abstract

This paper presents a new approach to study the optimal rotation policy with amenity valuation under uncertainty. We first postulate the stochastic forest value and assume plausibly that monetary value of amenities is a continuous and non-negative function of forest value thus presenting the trade-off between timber revenues and amenity values. Second, instead of using a dynamic programming approach, we derive a recursive representation of the total forest value and solve the optimal rotation threshold by applying ordinary non-linear programming techniques. Third, we characterize under certain set of conditions how the properties of both the expected cumulative value and the expected marginal cumulative value, accrued from amenity services, depend on the precise nature of the monetary valuation of amenities and what is the impact of volatility on these concepts. Finally, we illustrate our results explicitly in models based on logistic growth by focusing on the role of amenity valuation and volatility of forest value in the determination of Wicksellian and Faustmannian thresholds. Our theoretical and numerical findings emphasize the crucial importance of the nature of amenity valuation for the impact of higher volatility of forest value on the rotation thresholds.

Suggested Citation

  • Luis H. R. Alvarez & Erkki Koskela, 2003. "A General Approach to the Stochastic Rotation Problem with Amenity Valuation," CESifo Working Paper Series 857, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_857
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo_wp857.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. G. Cornelis van Kooten & Robert A. Schipper, 2002. "Forest Conservation in Costa Rica when Nonuse Benefits are Uncertain but Rising," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(1), pages 150-160.
    2. Koskela, Erkki & Ollikainen, Markku, 2001. "Forest Taxation and Rotation Age under Private Amenity Valuation: New Results," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 374-384, November.
    3. Snyder, Donald L. & Bhattacharyya, Rabindra N., 1990. "A more general dynamic economic model of the optimal rotation of multiple-use forests," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 168-175, March.
    4. Reed, William J., 1993. "The decision to conserve or harvest old-growth forest," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 45-69, August.
    5. Bowes, Michael D. & Krutilla, John V., 1985. "Multiple use management of public forestlands," Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics, in: A. V. Kneese† & J. L. Sweeney (ed.), Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 12, pages 531-569, Elsevier.
    6. Hartman, Richard, 1976. "The Harvesting Decision When a Standing Forest Has Value," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 14(1), pages 52-58, March.
    7. Koskela, E. & Ollikainen, M., 2000. "Optimal Forest Taxation under Private and Social Amenity Valuation," University of Helsinki, Department of Economics 498, Department of Economics.
    8. Strang, William J, 1983. "On the Optimal Forest Harvesting Decision," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 21(4), pages 576-583, October.
    9. Conrad, Jon M., 1997. "On the option value of old-growth forest," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 97-102, August.
    10. Conrad, Jon M., 2000. "Wilderness: options to preserve, extract, or develop," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 205-219, July.
    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. Newman, D.H., 2002. "Forestry's golden rule and the development of the optimal forest rotation literature," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 5-27.
    2. Couture, Stéphane & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Forest management under fire risk when forest carbon sequestration has value," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2002-2011, September.
    3. Gregory S. Amacher & Erkki Koskela & Markku Ollikainen, 2002. "Forest Rotations and Stand Interdependency: Ownership Structure and Timing of Decisions," CESifo Working Paper Series 673, CESifo.
    4. Loisel, Patrice & Elyakime, Bernard, 2018. "How to manage a small-scale multi-use forest?," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 13-17.
    5. Luca Corato & Michele Moretto & Sergio Vergalli, 2013. "Land conversion pace under uncertainty and irreversibility: too fast or too slow?," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 110(1), pages 45-82, September.
    6. Gong, Peichen & Boman, Mattias & Mattsson, Leif, 2005. "Non-timber benefits, price uncertainty and optimal harvest of an even-aged stand," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 283-295, March.
    7. Hampicke, Ulrich, 2001. "Remunerating nature conservation in central European forests: scope and limits of the Faustmann-Hartman approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 117-131, June.
    8. Maria A. Cunha-e-Sa & Sofia F. Franco, 2012. "Urban containment: an effective tool for environmental protection?," Nova SBE Working Paper Series wp563, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Nova School of Business and Economics.
    9. Warziniack, Travis & Sims, Charles & Haas, Jessica, 2019. "Fire and the joint production of ecosystem services: A spatial-dynamic optimization approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Tahvonen, Olli & Salo, Seppo, 1999. "Optimal Forest Rotation within SituPreferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 106-128, January.
    11. Sahashi, Yoshinao, 2002. "The convergence of optimal forestry control," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 179-214, May.
    12. Ben Abdallah, Skander & Lasserre, Pierre, 2017. "Forest land value and rotation with an alternative land use," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 118-127.
    13. Di Corato, Luca, 2012. "Optimal conservation policy under imperfect intergenerational altruism," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 194-206.
    14. Sun, Xing & Zhang, Daowei, 2020. "A theoretical and empirical analysis of joint forest production: Timber supply and amenity services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    15. Leroux, Anke D. & Martin, Vance L. & Goeschl, Timo, 2009. "Optimal conservation, extinction debt, and the augmented quasi-option value," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 43-57, July.
    16. Cerdá, Emilio & Martín-Barroso, David, 2013. "Optimal control for forest management and conservation analysis in dehesa ecosystems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 227(3), pages 515-526.
    17. Koskela, Erkki & Ollikainen, Markku & Pukkala, Timo, 2007. "Biodiversity policies in commercial boreal forests: Optimal design of subsidy and tax combinations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 982-995, May.
    18. Malchow-Moller, Nikolaj & Strange, Niels & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2004. "Real-options aspects of adjacency constraints," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 261-270, June.
    19. Maria A. Cunha‐e‐Sá & Sofia F. Franco, 2017. "The Effects of Development Constraints on Forest Management at the Urban‐Forest Interface," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 99(3), pages 614-636, April.
    20. Koskela, E. & Ollikainen, M., 2000. "Optimal Forest Taxation under Private and Social Amenity Valuation," University of Helsinki, Department of Economics 498, Department of Economics.

    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:ces:ceswps:_857. 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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.