IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v78y2017icp88-97.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Costs and carbon sequestration potential of alternative forest management measures in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Bösch, Matthias
  • Elsasser, Peter
  • Rock, Joachim
  • Rüter, Sebastian
  • Weimar, Holger
  • Dieter, Matthias

Abstract

The objective of this study is to assess the costs and the carbon sequestration potential of selected forest management measures in Germany, including effects on the harvested wood products (HWP) pool. We consider five different scenarios, each referring to an alternative level of wood harvests (due to changing rotation lengths or setting forest areas aside). The cost calculation is done within a framework that accounts for both financial impacts on downstream industries and impacts on the values of non-market goods and services of forests. To gauge the market-based costs of the scenarios in the national forest-based industries, different input-output methodological concepts are combined and applied in a novel fashion. A physical input-output table (PIOT) that shows the wood-based fiber flow through the forest-based industries of Germany forms the core of the model. The market-based costs of the mitigation measures are estimated as the aggregate of the value added losses in the German forest-based industries. Additionally, we include monetary value estimates of environmental costs and benefits based on a comprehensive choice experiment at the national level.

Suggested Citation

  • Bösch, Matthias & Elsasser, Peter & Rock, Joachim & Rüter, Sebastian & Weimar, Holger & Dieter, Matthias, 2017. "Costs and carbon sequestration potential of alternative forest management measures in Germany," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 88-97.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:78:y:2017:i:c:p:88-97
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934116302866
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Edward P. Stringham, 2010. "Economic Value and Costs are Subjective," Chapters, in: Peter J. Boettke (ed.), Handbook on Contemporary Austrian Economics, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Becher, Georg, 2015. "Clusterstatistik Forst und Holz: Tabellen für das Bundesgebiet und die Länder 2000 bis 2013," Thünen Working Papers 48, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    3. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    4. Weimar, Holger, 2016. "Holzbilanzen 2013 bis 2015 für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland," Thünen Working Papers 57, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    5. Seintsch, Björn, 2013. "Cluster Forst und Holz nach neuer Wirtschaftszweigklassifikation: Tabellen für das Bundesgebiet und die Länder 2000 bis 2011," Thünen Working Papers 5, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    6. Weimar, Holger (Ed.) & Jochem, Dominik (Ed.), 2013. "Holzverwendung im Bauwesen: Eine Marktstudie im Rahmen der "Charta für Holz"," Thünen Reports 9, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    7. Hubacek, Klaus & Giljum, Stefan, 2003. "Applying physical input-output analysis to estimate land appropriation (ecological footprints) of international trade activities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 137-151, February.
    8. Ní Dhubháin, Áine & Fléchard, Marie-Christine & Moloney, Richard & O'Connor, Deirdre, 2009. "Assessing the value of forestry to the Irish economy -- An input-output approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 50-55, January.
    9. 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.
    10. Weisz, Helga & Duchin, Faye, 2006. "Physical and monetary input-output analysis: What makes the difference?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 534-541, May.
    11. Stefan Giljum & Klaus Hubacek, 2004. "Alternative Approaches of Physical Input-Output Analysis to Estimate Primary Material Inputs of Production and Consumption Activities," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 301-310.
    12. Johannes Bollen & Bruno Guay & Stéphanie Jamet & Jan Corfee-Morlot, 2009. "Co-Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation Policies: Literature Review and New Results," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 693, OECD Publishing.
    13. Kaiser, Robert & Bösch, Matthias & Moog, Martin, 2013. "On the optimization of legislative periods — Similarities to the optimization of rotation periods," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 1-7.
    14. Douglas J. Miller, 1999. "An Econometric Analysis of the Costs of Sequestering Carbon in Forests," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(4), pages 812-824.
    15. Thomson, K. J. & Psaltopoulos, D., 2005. "Economy-wide effects of forestry development scenarios in rural Scotland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 515-525, May.
    16. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    17. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    18. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1993. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521447928, January.
    19. Rimmler, Thomas & Kurttila, Mikko & Pesonen, Mauno & Koljonen, Kauko, 2000. "Economic impacts of alternative timber-cutting scenarios in Finland: an input-output analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3-4), pages 301-313, December.
    20. John Loomis, 2011. "What'S To Know About Hypothetical Bias In Stated Preference Valuation Studies?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 363-370, April.
    21. J.A. Sathaye & W.R. Makundi & K. Andrasko & R. Boer & N.H. Ravindranath & P. Sudha & S. Rao & R. Lasco & F. Pulhin & O. Masera & A. Ceron & J. Ordonez & X. Deying & X. Zhang & S. Zuomin, 2001. "Carbon mitigation potential and costs of forestry options in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, the Philippines and Tanzania," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 185-211, 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. Bösch, Matthias & Elsasser, Peter & Franz, Kristin & Lorenz, Martin & Moning, Christoph & Olschewski, Roland & Rödl, Anne & Schneider, Heike & Schröppel, Bettina & Weller, Priska, 2018. "Forest ecosystem services in rural areas of Germany: Insights from the national TEEB study," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 77-83.
    2. Zanchi, Giuliana & Brady, Mark V., 2019. "Evaluating the contribution of forest ecosystem services to societal welfare through linking dynamic ecosystem modelling with economic valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    3. Manley, Bruce, 2020. "Impact on profitability, risk, optimum rotation age and afforestation of changing the New Zealand emissions trading scheme to an averaging approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).

    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. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Grösche, Peter & Schröder, Carsten, 2011. "Eliciting public support for greening the electricity mix using random parameter techniques," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 363-370, March.
    3. Peter Grösche & Carsten Schröder, 2010. "Eliciting Public Support for Greening the Electricity Mix Using Random Parameter Techniques," Ruhr Economic Papers 0233, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    4. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Chan, Kai-Ying & Volschenk, Jako, 2016. "Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 875-885.
    5. repec:zbw:rwirep:0233 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Lazrak, F. & Nijkamp, P. & Rietveld, P. & Rouwendal, J., 2009. "Cultural heritage and creative cities: an economic evaluation perspective," Serie Research Memoranda 0036, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    7. Amilon, Anna & Ladenburg, Jacob & Siren, Anu & Vernstrøm Østergaard, Stine, 2020. "Willingness to pay for long-term home care services: Evidence from a stated preferences analysis," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    8. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    9. Benitez, Pablo C. & Obersteiner, Michael, 2006. "Site identification for carbon sequestration in Latin America: A grid-based economic approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(6), pages 636-651, August.
    10. Sawe, Nik, 2017. "Using neuroeconomics to understand environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 1-9.
    11. Bruckner, Martin & Fischer, Günther & Tramberend, Sylvia & Giljum, Stefan, 2015. "Measuring telecouplings in the global land system: A review and comparative evaluation of land footprint accounting methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 11-21.
    12. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    13. Luttmer, Erzo F. P. & Zeckhauser, Richard & Kousky, Carolyn, 2006. "Permits to Elicit Information," Working Paper Series rwp06-049, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    14. Celia Bilbao-Terol, 2009. "Impacts of an Iron and Steel Plant on Residential Property Values," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(9), pages 1421-1436, September.
    15. 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.
    16. Jacquemet, Nicolas & Joule, Robert-Vincent & Luchini, Stéphane & Malézieux, Antoine, 2016. "Engagement et incitations : comportements économiques sous serment," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 92(1-2), pages 315-349, Mars-Juin.
    17. Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R. & Rommel, Jens, 2013. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Electricity from Cooperatives? Results from an Online Choice Experiment in Germany," MPRA Paper 52385, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    19. Kuosmanen, Timo & Kortelainen, Mika, 2007. "Valuing environmental factors in cost-benefit analysis using data envelopment analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 56-65, April.
    20. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason Shogren, 2011. "Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 413-433, March.
    21. Ballco, Petjon & Gracia, Azucena, 2020. "Do market prices correspond with consumer demands? Combining market valuation and consumer utility for extra virgin olive oil quality attributes in a traditional producing country," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).

    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:78:y:2017:i:c:p:88-97. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.