IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i9p4007-d1645631.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Assessment of the Economic Efficiency of the Afforestation Project in the North-West of Russia

Author

Listed:
  • Natalia Nesterenko

    (Department of Industrial Economics and Finance, Institute of Economics and Management, The Russian State Pedagogical University, 191186 St. Petersburg, Russia
    Department of Applied Ecology, Faculty of Biology, Saint Petersburg State University, 199178 St. Petersburg, Russia)

  • Maria Vetrova

    (Department of Enterprise Economics, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Faculty of Economics, Saint Petersburg State University, 199178 St. Petersburg, Russia)

  • Evgeny Abakumov

    (Department of Applied Ecology, Faculty of Biology, Saint Petersburg State University, 199178 St. Petersburg, Russia)

Abstract

The study of carbon stocks in organic compounds within terrestrial ecosystems allows us to create a pool of potential carbon farming projects. At present, it is essential to assess the economic viability of natural-based solutions in order to develop strategies to encourage small and medium enterprises (SME) and governments to address climate change through specific measures. This article is devoted to the study of the economic efficiency of afforestation projects. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the economic efficiency of the project and, based on NPV sensitivity analysis, to identify the factors affecting economic efficiency. This will make it possible to formulate directions for stimulating the development of afforestation projects using tools to improve their economic efficiency. Based on data on the number of carbon credits issued, their price, and the costs and other revenue associated with the implementation of the afforestation project, a sensitivity analysis of economic efficiency was conducted, highlighting the most significant factors. Given that different tree species are characterized by variable seedling values, planting costs, and sequestration potentials, an afforestation project with the most carbon efficient tree species was selected as a pilot project. Black alder exhibits the most optimal proportion between the volume of carbon units released and the cost of planting trees. A sensitivity analysis of the project’s net present value was conducted in order to ascertain the factors that have the most significant impact on the project’s economic efficiency. These include the discount rate based on the cost of capital and the cost of tree planting. As a result, this article makes recommendations for improving the economic efficiency of afforestation projects for SME. The government’s role in enhancing the economic efficiency of such initiatives entails reducing the cost of capital through a reduction in the key rate or the provision of subsidies for the interest rate on bank credits. An alternative approach involves the granting of subsidies for the cost of tree planting, since the effects can be seen as a series of public goods, such as the creation of recreational areas and increased biodiversity of the ecosystem.

Suggested Citation

  • Natalia Nesterenko & Maria Vetrova & Evgeny Abakumov, 2025. "Comparative Assessment of the Economic Efficiency of the Afforestation Project in the North-West of Russia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-23, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:9:p:4007-:d:1645631
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/9/4007/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/9/4007/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrey Artemenkov & Olga E. Medvedeva & Alexander N. Pavlov & Omonjon Ganiev, 2025. "The Issues of Carbon Pricing in the Russian Federation: The Local and International Perspectives Under the Cost Approach and the Role of Afforestation Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-16, January.
    2. Boycko, Maxim & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1996. "A Theory of Privatisation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(435), pages 309-319, March.
    3. Sofia Castelo & Miguel Amado & Filipa Ferreira, 2023. "Challenges and Opportunities in the Use of Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Adaptation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-18, April.
    4. España, F. & Arriagada, R. & Melo, O. & Foster, W., 2022. "Forest plantation subsidies: Impact evaluation of the Chilean case," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    5. K. G. Austin & J. S. Baker & B. L. Sohngen & C. M. Wade & A. Daigneault & S. B. Ohrel & S. Ragnauth & A. Bean, 2020. "The economic costs of planting, preserving, and managing the world’s forests to mitigate climate change," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Silvia Vanino & Valentina Baratella & Tiziana Pirelli & Donato Ferrari & Antonella Di Fonzo & Fabrizio Pucci & Nikolaos P. Nikolaidis & Maria A. Lilli & Zübeyde Albayram Doğan & Tuncay Topdemir & Sami, 2024. "Nature-Based Solutions for Optimizing the Water–Ecosystem–Food Nexus in Mediterranean Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-21, May.
    7. Phan, Thu-Ha Dang & Brouwer, Roy & Davidson, Marc David, 2017. "A Global Survey and Review of the Determinants of Transaction Costs of Forestry Carbon Projects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 1-10.
    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. Bozec, Richard, 2004. "L’analyse comparative de la performance entre les entreprises publiques et les entreprises privées : le problème de mesure et son impact sur les résultats," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 80(4), pages 619-654, Décembre.
    2. Imam, M. & Jamasb, T. & Llorca, M. & Llorca, M., 2018. "Power Sector Reform and Corruption: Evidence from Electricity Industry in Sub-Saharan Africa," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1801, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    3. Birgitte Grøgaard & Asmund Rygh & Gabriel R. G. Benito, 2019. "Bringing corporate governance into internalization theory: State ownership and foreign entry strategies," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(8), pages 1310-1337, October.
    4. Ding, Mingfa, 2014. "Political Connections and Stock Liquidity: Political Network, Hierarchy and Intervention," Knut Wicksell Working Paper Series 2014/7, Lund University, Knut Wicksell Centre for Financial Studies.
    5. Randall Morck & Lloyd Steier, 2005. "The Global History of Corporate Governance: An Introduction," NBER Chapters, in: A History of Corporate Governance around the World: Family Business Groups to Professional Managers, pages 1-64, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Barberis, Nicholas & Maxim Boycko & Andrei Shleifer & Natalia Tsukanova, 1996. "How Does Privatization Work? Evidence from the Russian Shops," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(4), pages 764-790, August.
    7. repec:eee:labchp:v:3:y:1999:i:pc:p:3573-3630 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Muhamad, Goran M. & Heshmati, Almas & Khayyat, Nabaz T., 2021. "How to reduce the degree of dependency on natural resources?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    9. Riham Ahmed Ezzat, 2015. "Paving the way for better telecom performance: Evidence from the telecommunication sector in MENA countries," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01164199, HAL.
    10. Wei, Zuobao & Varela, Oscar, 2003. "State equity ownership and firm market performance: evidence from China's newly privatized firms," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 65-82, May.
    11. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.
    12. Mehrdad Vahabi, 2001. "The Soft Budget Constraint: A Theoretical Clarification," Post-Print hal-00629160, HAL.
    13. repec:tur:wpaper:9 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Parker, David, 2001. "Economic Regulation: A Preliminary Literature Review and Summary of Research Questions Arising," Centre on Regulation and Competition (CRC) Working papers 30616, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    15. Claessens,Constantijn A. & Djankov, Simeon, 1998. "Politicians and firms in seven central and eastern European countries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1954, The World Bank.
    16. Walsh, Patrick Paul & Whelan, Ciara, 2001. "Firm performance and the political economy of corporate governance: survey evidence for Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 85-112, June.
    17. Chen, Ruiyuan & El Ghoul, Sadok & Guedhami, Omrane & Wang, He, 2017. "Do state and foreign ownership affect investment efficiency? Evidence from privatizations," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 408-421.
    18. Gasperin, Simone, 2022. "Lessons from the past for 21st century systems of state-owned enterprises: The case of Italy's IRI in the 1930s," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 599-612.
    19. Wali Ullah, 2017. "Evolving corporate governance and firms performance: evidence from Japanese firms," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 1-33, February.
    20. Piao, Xuelian & Park, Junmin & Chung, Chris Changwha, 2025. "Real options strategy and firm heterogeneity: Foreign multinational enterprises’ equity acquisition in Chinese international joint ventures," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(2).
    21. Jens Abildtrup & Anne Stenger, 2022. "Report on valuation methods," Working Papers hal-04068881, HAL.
    22. Jones, Derek & Klinedinst, Mark & Rock, Charles, 1998. "Productive Efficiency during Transition: Evidence from Bulgarian Panel Data," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 446-464, September.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:9:p:4007-:d:1645631. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.