IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa05p746.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Contribution Of Afforestation To Sustainable Land Management In Ukraine

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Nijnik
  • Arie Oskam
  • A. Nijnik

Abstract

This paper focuses on the establishment of forest plantations on bare lands and marginal agricultural lands: a multifunctional afforestation programme for Ukraine is elaborated. The multiple forest functions are limited in this research to wood production and erosion prevention. Ukraine is faced with erosion on 35% of its arable lands. Some 20 million ha of lands are experiencing various stages of erosion, and it is increasing with time. Erosion is especially harmful in the Carpathian Mountains where it causes windthrows and floods, and in the Steppe zone where it results in blowing up sands. Along with exploration of the expanded timber supply from the newly created forest plantations, soil protection forest functions therefore are examined. The proposition that forest cover affects the rates of soil erosion is tested empirically by means of regression analysis. The results of the estimations show a statistically significant negative relationship between soil erosion and forest cover in Ukraine and across the forestry zones. Using the results of the analysis, indicative estimates of the soil protection role of the forests are computed. Further discussion focuses on the proposed expansion of forest cover and on the potential positive effects for agriculture due to erosion prevention. Calculations have been made at different levels of detail. By using a simulation technique and cost-benefit analysis, in combination with LP modelling, it is revealed that for the discount rate of 4%, planting trees on bare lands, except in the Polissja and the Crimea, is an economically efficient means to address wood production and erosion prevention. Results are highly dependent on the relevant discount rate. For marginal agricultural lands mixed results are obtained. Moreover, there is a difference between estimated benefits for agriculture and benefits for the planter of the trees. It seems therefore necessary that e.g. the government balances costs and benefits to provide incentives for the planter of the trees. Finally, the research comes up with some practical suggestions for forest management decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Nijnik & Arie Oskam & A. Nijnik, 2005. "Contribution Of Afforestation To Sustainable Land Management In Ukraine," ERSA conference papers ersa05p746, European Regional Science Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa05p746
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa05/papers/746.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nick Hanley & Clive L. Spash, 1993. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 205.
    2. Sen Wang & Tim Bogle & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2012. "Forestry and the New Institutional Economics," Working Papers 2012-05, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
    3. S. Nilsson & A. Shvidenko, 1999. "The Ukrainian Forest Sector in a Global Perspective," Working Papers ir99011, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    4. Nijnik, Maria, 2004. "To an economist's perception on sustainability in forestry-in-transition," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 403-413, June.
    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. Maria Nijnik, 2004. "Economics of climate change mitigation forest policy scenarios for Ukraine," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 319-336, September.
    2. Maria Nijnik & Guillaume Pajot, 2014. "Accounting for uncertainties and time preference in economic analysis of tackling climate change through forestry and selected policy implications for Scotland and Ukraine," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 124(3), pages 677-690, June.
    3. Jose M. Martínez-Paz & Angel Perni & Federico Martínez-Carrasco, 2013. "Assessment of the Programme of Measures for Coastal Lagoon Environmental Restoration Using Cost--Benefit Analysis," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 131-148, February.
    4. Karine Nyborg & Inger Spangen, 2000. "Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Democratic Ideal," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 26, pages 83-93.
    5. Mogaka, Violet Moraa & Mbatia, O.L.E. & Nzuma, Jonathan M., 2012. "Feasibility of Biofuel Production in Kenya: The Case of Jatropha," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126427, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Jeffrey Biggs & Susanna Laaksonen-Craig & Kurt Niquidet & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2006. "Resolving Canada-US Trade Disputes in Agriculture and Forestry: Lessons from Lumber," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 32(2), pages 143-156, June.
    7. Gurluk, Serkan, 2006. "The estimation of ecosystem services' value in the region of Misi Rural Development Project: Results from a contingent valuation survey," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 209-218, December.
    8. Martin C. Whitby & W. Neil Adger, 1997. "Natural And Reproducible Capital And The Sustainability Of Land Use In The Uk: A Reply," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1‐3), pages 454-458, January.
    9. E.C.M. Ruijgrok & E.E.M. Nillesen, 2004. "The Socio-Economic Value of Natural Riverbanks in the Netherlands," Working Papers 2004.64, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    10. Spash, Clive L. & Ryan, Anthony M., 2010. "Ecological, Heterodox and Neoclassical Economics: Investigating the Differences," MPRA Paper 26292, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Bashar Raisa & Nandy Ananya, 2019. "A more efficient valuation of beaches using tourists’ perspectives and Geographic Information System (GIS): The case of Patenga of Chittagong, Bangladesh," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, Sciendo, vol. 7(3), pages 54-65, September.
    12. Schilizzi, Steven, 2000. "The economics of ethical behaviour and environmental management," 2000 Conference (44th), January 23-25, 2000, Sydney, Australia 123729, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Mazur, Kasia & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2008. "Using focus groups to design a choice modelling questionnaire for estimating natural resource management benefits in NSW," Research Reports 94801, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    14. Halkos, George E. & Jones, Nikoleta, 2012. "Modeling the effect of social factors on improving biodiversity protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 90-99.
    15. Aline Chiabai & Ibon Galarraga & Anil Markandya & Unai Pascual, 2013. "The Equivalency Principle for Discounting the Value of Natural Assets: An Application to an Investment Project in the Basque Coast," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(4), pages 535-550, December.
    16. Rosalie Arendt & Till M. Bachmann & Masaharu Motoshita & Vanessa Bach & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2020. "Comparison of Different Monetization Methods in LCA: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-39, December.
    17. van der Straaten, J., 1995. "Tourism in national parks," WORC Paper 95.12.030/2, Tilburg University, Work and Organization Research Centre.
    18. Olena Hankivsk & Jane Friesen & Colleen Varcoe & Fiona MacPhail & Lorraine Greaves & Charmaine Spencer, 2004. "Expanding Economic Costing in Health Care: Values, Gender and Diversity," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 30(3), pages 257-282, September.
    19. Prabha Prayaga & John Rolfe & Jack Sinden, 2006. "A Travel Cost Analysis of the Value of Special Events: Gemfest in Central Queensland," Tourism Economics, , vol. 12(3), pages 403-420, September.
    20. Peter Nijkamp & Chiara Maria Travisi & Gabriella Vindigni, 2002. "Pesticide Risk Valuation in Empirical Economics," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 02-112/3, Tinbergen Institute.

    More about this item

    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa05p746. 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: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    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.