IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v23y2012icp10-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is enrichment planting worth its costs? A financial cost–benefit analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Keefe, K.
  • Alavalapati, J.A.A.
  • Pinheiro, C.

Abstract

A strategy for enhancing natural forests' economic value is to increase their concentration of economically important, indigenous tree species by planting seeds or seedlings for future harvest, which can be accomplished with enrichment planting (EP). EP may help make forest management financially attractive and thereby reduce forest conversion to other uses but many factors deter landholders from EP, including a lack of reliable information about its costs and benefits. A financial appraisal of an eastern Amazon EP case study is presented with 7 alternate scenarios: high and low financial costs, low timber yield, carbon sequestration payments, higher timber prices, free seedlings, and reduced discount rates. A sensitivity analysis of carbon payment amounts, timber prices, and discount rates is explored. The net present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), and benefit cost ratio (BCR) are reported for each scenario. Results showed that start-up costs must be kept low, and site maintenance must not only be sustained but also kept minimal to prevent costs from exceeding financial benefits of EP. Scenarios with the best NPV and BCR were those with carbon sequestration sales, higher timber prices, and a low discount rate. Carbon sequestration and high timber sale prices resulted in the best IRRs.

Suggested Citation

  • Keefe, K. & Alavalapati, J.A.A. & Pinheiro, C., 2012. "Is enrichment planting worth its costs? A financial cost–benefit analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 10-16.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:23:y:2012:i:c:p:10-16
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.07.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934112001530
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.07.004?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. Smith, Joyotee & Applegate, Grahame, 2004. "Could payments for forest carbon contribute to improved tropical forest management?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 153-167, March.
    2. Otsuka, Keijiro & Quisumbing, Agnes R. & Payongayong, Ellen & Aidoo, J.B., 2003. "Land tenure and the management of land and trees: the case of customary land tenure areas of Ghana," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 77-104, February.
    3. Coomes, Oliver T. & Grimard, Franque & Potvin, Catherin & Sima, Philip, 2008. "The fate of the tropical forest: Carbon or cattle?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 207-212, April.
    4. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    5. Fearnside, Philip M., 2001. "Saving tropical forests as a global warming countermeasure: an issue that divides the environmental movement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 167-184, November.
    6. Andrew Stainback, G. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 2002. "Economic analysis of slash pine forest carbon sequestration in the southern U. S," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 105-117.
    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. Grilli, Gianluca & Jonkisz, Jaroslaw & Ciolli, Marco & Lesinski, Jerzy, 2016. "Mixed forests and ecosystem services: Investigating stakeholders' perceptions in a case study in the Polish Carpathians," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 11-17.
    2. Ruslandi, & Romero, C. & Putz, F.E., 2017. "Financial viability and carbon payment potential of large-scale silvicultural intensification in logged dipterocarp forests in Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P1), pages 95-102.

    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. Matthies, Brent D. & Valsta, Lauri T., 2016. "Optimal forest species mixture with carbon storage and albedo effect for climate change mitigation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 95-105.
    2. Balvanera, Patricia & Uriarte, María & Almeida-Leñero, Lucía & Altesor, Alice & DeClerck, Fabrice & Gardner, Toby & Hall, Jefferson & Lara, Antonio & Laterra, Pedro & Peña-Claros, Marielos & Silva, 2012. "Ecosystem services research in Latin America: The state of the art," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 56-70.
    3. Kneteman Christie & Green Andrew, 2009. "The Twin Failures of the CDM: Recommendations for the "Copenhagen Protocol"," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 225-256, October.
    4. Kangas, Johanna & Ollikainen, Markku, 2022. "A PES scheme promoting forest biodiversity and carbon sequestration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    5. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    6. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    7. Ian Hodge & William M. Adams, 2016. "Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-17, November.
    8. Surun, Clément & Drechsler, Martin, 2018. "Effectiveness of Tradable Permits for the Conservation of Metacommunities With Two Competing Species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 189-196.
    9. Galati, Antonino & Crescimanno, Maria & Gristina, Luciano & Keesstra, Saskia & Novara, Agata, 2016. "Actual provision as an alternative criterion to improve the efficiency of payments for ecosystem services for C sequestration in semiarid vineyards," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 58-64.
    10. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    11. Cicelin Rakotomahazo & Jacqueline Razanoelisoa & Nirinarisoa Lantoasinoro Ranivoarivelo & Gildas Georges Boleslas Todinanahary & Eulalie Ranaivoson & Mara Edouard Remanevy & Lalao Aigrette Ravaoarinor, 2021. "Community Perceptions of a Payment for Ecosystem Services Project in Southwest Madagascar: A Preliminary Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    12. Cooke, Benjamin & Corbo-Perkins, Gabriella, 2018. "Co-opting and resisting market based instruments for private land conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 172-181.
    13. Bardsley, Douglas K. & Bardsley, Annette M., 2014. "Organising for socio-ecological resilience: The roles of the mountain farmer cooperative Genossenschaft Gran Alpin in Graubünden, Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 11-21.
    14. Patrick Bottazzi & David Crespo & Harry Soria & Hy Dao & Marcelo Serrudo & Jean Paul Benavides & Stefan Schwarzer & Stephan Rist, 2014. "Carbon Sequestration in Community Forests: Trade-offs, Multiple Outcomes and Institutional Diversity in the Bolivian Amazon," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 45(1), pages 105-131, January.
    15. McGrath, F.L. & Carrasco, L.R. & Leimona, B., 2017. "How auctions to allocate payments for ecosystem services contracts impact social equity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 44-55.
    16. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    17. Veronesi, Marcella & Reutemann, Tim & Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2015. "Designing REDD+ schemes when forest users are not forest landowners: Evidence from a survey-based experiment in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 46-57.
    18. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    19. Mayer, Alex & Jones, Kelly & Hunt, David & Manson, Robert & Carter Berry, Z. & Asbjornsen, Heidi & Wright, Timothy Max & Salcone, Jacob & Lopez Ramirez, Sergio & Ã vila-Foucat, Sophie & Von Thaden Uga, 2022. "Assessing ecosystem service outcomes from payments for hydrological services programs in Veracruz, Mexico: Future deforestation threats and spatial targeting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    20. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.

    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:23:y:2012:i:c:p:10-16. 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.