IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

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


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


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

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    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

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    12. Johansson,Per-Olov, 1993. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521447928, December.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    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).


    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: .

    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.