IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulp/sbbeta/2024-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An economic analysis of a storage policy after a storm occurrence in forestry

Author

Listed:
  • Julien JACOB
  • Antoine LEBLOIS
  • Marielle BRUNETTE

Abstract

Storm is among the main threat for European forestry generating huge economic damage. The decrease of the timber price due to the storm occurrence largely contributes to these economic impacts. Timber storage appears as the standard policy to implement in order to limit these negative impacts. Consequently, in this article, we propose a global economic assessment of a storage policy taking into account the impacts on producers, consumers and the cost of public funds. For that purpose, we develop a tractable theoretical model which assesses welfare losses and gains incurred/earned by all agents of the society (forester (supply), consumers (downstream agents), and the public agent), from the storage. The model is then simulated. Our results show that globally, the storage policy is always desirable except for the consumers in the case of storms associated with a low magnitude.

Suggested Citation

  • Julien JACOB & Antoine LEBLOIS & Marielle BRUNETTE, 2024. "An economic analysis of a storage policy after a storm occurrence in forestry," Working Papers of BETA 2024-27, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
  • Handle: RePEc:ulp:sbbeta:2024-27
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://beta.u-strasbg.fr/WP/2024/2024-27.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arnaud Reynaud & Stéphane Couture, 2012. "Stability of risk preference measures: results from a field experiment on French farmers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 203-221, August.
    2. Sandrine Brèteau-Amores & Rasoul Yousefpour & Marc Hanewinkel & Mathieu Fortin, 2020. "Composition diversification vs. structure diversification: How to conciliate timber production and carbon sequestration objectives under drought and windstorm risks in forest ecosystems," Working Papers of BETA 2020-31, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    3. M. Brunette & M. Hanewinkel & R. Yousefpour, 2020. "Risk aversion hinders forestry professionals to adapt to climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 2157-2180, October.
    4. Brunette, Marielle & Couture, Stéphane, 2008. "Public compensation for windstorm damage reduces incentives for risk management investments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(7-8), pages 491-499, October.
    5. Caurla, Sylvain & Garcia, Serge & Niedzwiedz, Alexandra, 2015. "Store or export? An economic evaluation of financial compensation to forest sector after windstorm. The case of Hurricane Klaus," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 30-38.
    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. Marielle Brunette & Stéphane Couture & Patrice Loisel, 2025. "Decisions under ambiguities and value of information: An experiment on forest management in the context of climate change," Working Papers of BETA 2025-41, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    2. Sauter, Philipp A. & Hermann, Daniel & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Are foresters really risk-averse? A multi-method analysis and a cross-occupational comparison," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 37-45.
    3. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    4. Hallberg-Sramek, Isabella & Nordström, Eva-Maria & Priebe, Janina & Reimerson, Elsa & Mårald, Erland & Nordin, Annika, 2023. "Combining scientific and local knowledge improves evaluating future scenarios of forest ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    5. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Zubanov, Nick & Cadsby, Bram & Song, Fei, 2017. "The," IZA Discussion Papers 10542, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    8. Olivier Damette & Philippe Delacote, 2009. "The environmental resource curse hypothesis : the forest case [L'hypothèse de malédiction environnemental des ressources : le cas des forêts]," Working Papers hal-01189378, HAL.
    9. Luisa Menapace & Gregory Colson & Roberta Raffaelli, 2016. "A comparison of hypothetical risk attitude elicitation instruments for explaining farmer crop insurance purchases," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(1), pages 113-135.
    10. Marielle Brunette & Stéphane Couture & Eric Langlais, 2009. "Amenities and Risk in Forest Managemen," Working Papers - Cahiers du LEF 2009-01, Laboratoire d'Economie Forestiere, AgroParisTech-INRA.
    11. Marielle Brunette & Stéphane Couture & Serge S. Garcia, 2011. "Determinants of insurance demand against forest fire risk: Evidence from experimental and real world data," Post-Print hal-01191123, HAL.
    12. Bénédicte Rulleau, 2024. "Household preferences for cyber-attack resilient water distribution networks: A latent class analysis of a discrete choice experiment in France," Post-Print hal-04157111, HAL.
    13. Liu, Xianglin & Tang, Yingmei & Miranda, Mario J., 2015. "Does Past Experience in Natural Disasters Affect Willingness-to-Pay for Weather Index Insurance? Evidence from China," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205374, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Bauermeister, Golo & Musshoff, Oliver, 2016. "Risk Aversion and Inconsistencies - Does the Choice of Risk Elicitation Method and Display Format Influence the Outcomes?," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235348, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Eun Jin Kwak & John E. Grable, 2024. "A Comparison of Financial Risk-Tolerance Assessment Methods in Predicting Subsequent Risk Tolerance and Future Portfolio Choices," Risks, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-18, October.
    16. Trestini, Samuel & Giampietri, Elisa & Smiglak-Krajewska, Magdalena, "undated". "Farmer behaviour towards the agricultural risk management tools provided by the CAP: a comparison between Italy and Poland," 162nd Seminar, April 26-27, 2018, Budapest, Hungary 271978, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Dai, Yongwu & Chang, Hung-Hao & Liu, Weiping, 2015. "Do forest producers benefit from the forest disaster insurance program? Empirical evidence in Fujian Province of China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 127-133.
    18. Sylvain Caurla & Philippe Delacote & Franck Lecocq & Ahmed Barkaoui, 2009. "Fuelwood consumption, restrictions about resource availability and public policies: impacts on the French forest sector," Working Papers - Cahiers du LEF 2009-03, Laboratoire d'Economie Forestiere, AgroParisTech-INRA.
    19. Andrea Leuermann & Sarah Necker, 2011. "Intergenerational Transmission of Risk Attitudes: A Revealed Preference Approach," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 412, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    20. Marielle Brunette & Laure Cabantous & Stéphane Couture & Anne Stenger, 2009. "Assurance, intervention publique et ambiguïté : une étude expérimentale auprès de propriétaires forestiers privés," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 190(4), pages 123-134.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • Q23 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Forestry

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ulp:sbbeta:2024-27. 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: the person in charge The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask the person in charge to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bestrfr.html .

    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.