IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ete/ceswps/ces0612.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Optimal location of new forests in a suburban region

Author

Listed:
  • Ellen Moons
  • Bert Saveyn
  • Stef Proost
  • Martin Hermy

Abstract

This paper looks at the optimal location of new forests in a suburban region under area constraints. The GIS-based methodology takes into account use benefits such as timber, hunting, carbon sequestration and recreation, non-use benefits (both bequest and existence values), opportunity costs of converting agricultural land, as well as planting and management costs of the new forest. The recreation benefits of new forest sites are estimated using function transfer techniques. We show that the net social benefit of the total afforestation project may vary up to a factor 6, depending on the forest sites that are selected. We show that the recreation value of a forest site varies considerably with the available substitutes.

Suggested Citation

  • Ellen Moons & Bert Saveyn & Stef Proost & Martin Hermy, 2006. "Optimal location of new forests in a suburban region," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven ces0612, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    • Handle: RePEc:ete:ceswps:ces0612
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/119271/1/Dps0612.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marianne Zandersen & Mette Termansen & Frank S. Jensen, 2005. "Benefit Transfer over Time of Ecosystem Values: the Case of Forest Recreation," Working Papers FNU-61, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised Mar 2005.
    2. Scarpa, Riccardo & Chilton, Susan M. & Hutchinson, W. George & Buongiorno, Joseph, 2000. "Valuing the recreational benefits from the creation of nature reserves in Irish forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-250, May.
    3. Bostedt, Göran & Mattsson, Leif, 2006. "A note on benefits and costs of adjusting forestry to meet recreational demands," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 75-81, March.
    4. Bateman,Ian J. & Lovett,Andrew A. & Brainard,Julii S., 2005. "Applied Environmental Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521671583, September.
    5. Drake, Lars, 1992. "The Non-market Value of the Swedish Agricultural Landscape," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 19(3), pages 351-364.
    6. Ian Bateman & Andrew Lovett & Julii Brainard, 1999. "Developing a Methodology for Benefit Transfers Using Geographical Information Systems: Modelling Demand for Woodland Recreation," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(3), pages 191-205.
    7. Robert N. Stavins, 1999. "The Costs of Carbon Sequestration: A Revealed-Preference Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 994-1009, September.
    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. Alejandro Caparrós & Emilio Cerdá & Paola Ovando & Pablo Campos, 2010. "Carbon Sequestration with Reforestations and Biodiversity-scenic Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(1), pages 49-72, January.
    2. Schägner, Jan Philipp & Brander, Luke & Maes, Joachim & Hartje, Volkmar, 2013. "Mapping ecosystem services' values: Current practice and future prospects," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 33-46.
    3. DE VALCK, Jeremy & BROEKX, Steven & LIEKENS, Inge & DE NOCKER, Leo & VAN ORSHOVEN, Jos & VRANKEN, Liesbet, 2015. "Contrasting the collective social value of outdoor recreation and the substitutability of nature areas using hot spot mapping," Working Papers 208359, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    4. Zenglian Zhang & Wenju Zhao, 2018. "Research on Financial Pressure, Poverty Governance, and Environmental Pollution in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-24, June.

    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. Aline Chiabai & Chiara Travisi & Anil Markandya & Helen Ding & Paulo Nunes, 2011. "Economic Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Services Losses: Cost of Policy Inaction," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(3), pages 405-445, November.
    2. Ding, Helen & Chiabai, Aline & Silvestri, Silvia & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D., 2016. "Valuing climate change impacts on European forest ecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 141-153.
    3. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L. & Alló, Maria & Barrio, Melina, 2016. "Ecosystem Services and REDD: Estimating the Benefits of Non-Carbon Services in Worldwide Forests," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 246-261.
    4. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    5. Ellen Moons & B Saveyn & Stef Proost & Martin Hermy, 2005. "Optimal location of new forests in a suburban area," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven 544035, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    6. Zandersen, Marianne & Tol, Richard S.J., 2009. "A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 109-130, January.
    7. Mette Termansen & Colin J McClean & Hans Skov-Petersen, 2004. "Recreational Site Choice Modelling Using High-Resolution Spatial Data," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(6), pages 1085-1099, June.
    8. Barrio, Melina & Loureiro, Maria L., 2010. "A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1023-1030, March.
    9. Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & Vačkářová, Davina, 2021. "The value of forest ecosystem services: A meta-analysis at the European scale and application to national ecosystem accounting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    10. Mogas Amorós, Joan, 2016. "What are the social benefits of carbon sequestration?," Working Papers 2072/261536, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    11. Robert N. Stavins, 1998. "A Methodological Investigation of the Costs of Carbon Sequestration," Journal of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 231-277, November.
    12. Mark Brady & Konrad Kellermann & Christoph Sahrbacher & Ladislav Jelinek, 2009. "Impacts of Decoupled Agricultural Support on Farm Structure, Biodiversity and Landscape Mosaic: Some EU Results," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 563-585, September.
    13. Monge, Juan J. & Bryant, Henry L. & Gan, Jianbang & Richardson, James W., 2016. "Land use and general equilibrium implications of a forest-based carbon sequestration policy in the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 102-120.
    14. Rong Li & Brent Sohngen & Xiaohui Tian, 2022. "Efficiency of forest carbon policies at intensive and extensive margins," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(4), pages 1243-1267, August.
    15. Manning, Dale & Rad, Mani Rouhi & Ogle, Stephen, 2022. "Inferring the Supply of GHG Abatement from Agricultural Lands," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322539, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Mason, Charles F. & Plantinga, Andrew J., 2011. "Contracting for Impure Public Goods: Carbon Offsets and Additionality," Sustainable Development Papers 101290, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    17. Catherine L. Kling & Raymond W. Arritt & Gray Calhoun & David A. Keiser, 2016. "Research Needs and Challenges in the FEW System: Coupling Economic Models with Agronomic, Hydrologic, and Bioenergy Models for Sustainable Food, Energy, and Water Systems," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 16-wp563, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    18. Elena Ojea & Paulo Nunes & Maria Loureiro, 2010. "Mapping Biodiversity Indicators and Assessing Biodiversity Values in Global Forests," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 329-347, November.
    19. Charles A. Zelek & Gerald E. Shively, 2003. "Measuring the Opportunity Cost of Carbon Sequestration in Tropical Agriculture," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(3), pages 342-354.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Benefit transfer; travel cost analysis; cost-benefit analysis; forest recreation; Geographical Information Systems (GIS);
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry
    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • Q26 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources
    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ete:ceswps:ces0612. 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: library EBIB (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://feb.kuleuven.be/Economics/ .

    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.