IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v100y2019icp14-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic viability of longleaf pine management in the Southeastern United States

Author

Listed:
  • Susaeta, Andres
  • Gong, Peichen

Abstract

The lack of economic information for management of longleaf pine, a forest type that once dominated the landscape in the southeastern United States, can be a major barrier to landowners to planting this species. This study compares the economic performance of even-aged longleaf pine with loblolly pine. We assume that a longleaf pine stand produces timber, water yield, wildlife habitats and pinestraw raking, while a loblolly pine stand is managed exclusively for timber production. For both species, future timber prices are uncertain and harvest decisions will be made following an optimal adaptive harvest strategy. Our findings show that investing in longleaf pine plantations is not generally an economically attractive option compared to loblolly pine for landowners. On average, the land expectation value for loblolly pine is $4610 ha−1 higher than the land expectation value of longleaf pine. Stronger markets for water yield ($0.04–$0.073 k-liter−1) can favor the competitiveness of longleaf over loblolly pine. In the absence of increased payments for water production, landowners require financial incentives between $235–$642 ha−1 over 15 years, to switch from planting loblolly to longleaf pine. When water payments are included ($0.03–$0.0 k-liter−1), incentives between $173–320 ha−1 are required to plant longleaf instead of loblolly pine.

Suggested Citation

  • Susaeta, Andres & Gong, Peichen, 2019. "Economic viability of longleaf pine management in the Southeastern United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 14-23.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:100:y:2019:i:c:p:14-23
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2018.11.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934118302855
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.11.004?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
    ---><---

    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. Gregory S. Amacher & Markku Ollikainen & Erkki A. Koskela, 2009. "Economics of Forest Resources," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262012480, December.
    2. Gong, Peichen & Löfgren, Karl Gustaf, 2007. "Market and welfare implications of the reservation price strategy for forest harvest decisions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 217-243, November.
    3. Alavalapati, Janaki R. R. & Stainback, George A. & Carter, Douglas R., 2002. "Restoration of the longleaf pine ecosystem on private lands in the US South: an ecological economic analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 411-419, March.
    4. Dixie Reaves & Randall Kramer & Thomas Holmes, 1999. "Does Question Format Matter? Valuing an Endangered Species," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(3), pages 365-383, October.
    5. Gong, Peichen & Lofgren, Karl-Gustaf, 2009. "Modeling Forest Harvest Decisions: Advances and Challenges," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 3(3), pages 195-216, December.
    6. Gren, Ing-Marie & Zeleke, Abenezer Aklilu, 2016. "Policy design for forest carbon sequestration: A review of the literature," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 128-136.
    7. Andrew Stainback, G. & Alavalapati, Janaki R. R., 2004. "Restoring longleaf pine through silvopasture practices: an economic analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 371-378, June.
    8. Peter Lohmander, 2007. "Adaptive Optimization of Forest Management in A Stochastic World," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Andres Weintraub & Carlos Romero & Trond Bjørndal & Rafael Epstein & Jaime Miranda (ed.), Handbook Of Operations Research In Natural Resources, chapter 0, pages 525-543, Springer.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Yin, Runsheng & Newman, David H., 1996. "The Effect of Catastrophic Risk on Forest Investment Decisions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 186-197, September.
    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. Xu, Ying & Amacher, Gregory S. & Sullivan, Jay, 2016. "Optimal forest management with sequential disturbances," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 106-122.
    2. Deegen, Peter & Matolepszy, Kai, 2015. "Economic balancing of forest management under storm risk, the case of the Ore Mountains (Germany)," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 1-13.
    3. Rakotoarison, Hanitra & Loisel, Patrice, 2016. "The Faustmann model under storm risk and price uncertainty: A case study of European beech in Northwestern France," MPRA Paper 85114, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Dwivedi, Puneet & Bailis, Robert & Stainback, Andrew & Carter, Douglas R., 2012. "Impact of payments for carbon sequestered in wood products and avoided carbon emissions on the profitability of NIPF landowners in the US South," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 63-69.
    5. Matta, Jagannadha & Alavalapati, Janaki & Tanner, George, 2007. "A framework for developing marked-based policies to further biodiversity on non-industrial private forests (NIPF)," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(7), pages 779-788, April.
    6. Miettinen, Jenni & Ollikainen, Markku & Nieminen, Tiina M. & Ukonmaanaho, Liisa & Laurén, Ari & Hynynen, Jari & Lehtonen, Mika & Valsta, Lauri, 2014. "Whole-tree harvesting with stump removal versus stem-only harvesting in peatlands when water quality, biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation matter," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-35.
    7. Mats, Andersson & Gong, Peichen, 6. "Risk Preferences, Risk Perceptions and Timber Harvest Decisions – An Empirical Study of NIPF Owners in Northern Sweden," Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, issue 42, April.
    8. Marielle Brunette & Stephane Couture, 2018. "Risk management activities of a non-industrial privateforest owner with a bivariate utility function," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 99(3-4), pages 281-302.
    9. Hallmann, Fanfan W. & Amacher, Gregory S., 2014. "Uncertain emerging biomass markets, ecosystem services, and optimal land use," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 46-56.
    10. Gregory S. Amacher & Arun S. Malik & Robert G. Haight, 2005. "Not Getting Burned: The Importance of Fire Prevention in Forest Management," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(2).
    11. Patrice Loisel & Marielle Brunette & Stéphane Couture, 2020. "Insurance and Forest Rotation Decisions Under Storm Risk," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(2), pages 347-367, July.
    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. Coordes, Renke, 2016. "Coordination of forest management through market and political institutions," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 66-77.
    14. Macpherson, Morag F. & Kleczkowski, Adam & Healey, John R. & Hanley, Nick, 2017. "Payment for multiple forest benefits alters the effect of tree disease on optimal forest rotation length," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 82-94.
    15. 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).
    16. 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.
    17. Yu, Zhihan & Ning, Zhuo & Chang, Wei-Yew & Chang, Sun Joseph & Yang, Hongqiang, 2023. "Optimal harvest decisions for the management of carbon sequestration forests under price uncertainty and risk preferences," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    18. Petucco, Claudio & Andrés-Domenech, Pablo, 2018. "Land expectation value and optimal rotation age of maritime pine plantations under multiple risks," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 58-70.
    19. Nguyen, Trung Thanh & Nghiem, Nhung, 2016. "Optimal forest rotation for carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation by farm income levels," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 185-194.
    20. Khanal, Puskar N. & Grebner, Donald L. & Munn, Ian A. & Grado, Stephen C. & Grala, Robert K. & Henderson, James E., 2017. "Evaluating non-industrial private forest landowner willingness to manage for forest carbon sequestration in the southern United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 112-119.

    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:100:y:2019:i:c:p:14-23. 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.