The unresolved problem of determining the forest interest rate

Open access

Abstract

Valuation of forests and their components is a significant problem, both for science and practice. At present, in many countries, the market of forest property is limited. As a result, no conclusions may be inferred on the forest value based on the information on forest purchase and sale transactions. In this situation, we apply static methods of forest valuation. The problem of forest statics has been discussed for years (e.g., Brukas et al. 2001; Chang 1983, 2001; Dieter 2001; Hartman 1976; Manley and Bare 2001; Mohring 2001; Zhang 2001; Viitala 2016). Static methods of forest valuation are well known. In the construction of the proposed mathematical formula (Eq. 6), the Faustmann theory was applied, concerning the economic equilibrium in forestry. Numerous modifications of his equation for economic equilibrium were used to develop, for example, an income method for forest valuation based on discounting the final value or prolongation of initial value. The forest interest rate is a key element in these equations. At present, there are no procedures for the establishment of this interest rate, which would be generally accepted by the scientific community. Therefore, the article presents and discusses selected concepts for determining the forest interest rate.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • André M.-F. 1998. Depopulation land-use change and landscape transformation in the French Massif Central. Ambio 27 (4) 351–353.

  • Ansink E. Hein L. Hasund K.P. 2008. To value functions or services? An analysis of ecosystem valuation approaches. Environmental Values 17 (4) 489–503.

  • Barrena J. Nahuelhual L. Báez A. Schiappacasse I. Cerda C. 2014. Valuing cultural ecosystem services: Agricultural heritage in Chiloé island southern Chile. Ecosystem Services 7 66–75. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.005.

  • Brukas V. Jellesmark Thorsen B. Helles F. Tarp P. 2001. Discount rate and harvest policy: implications for Baltic forestry. Forest Policy and Economics 2 (2) 143–156. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(01)00050-8.

  • Calish S. Fight R.D. Teeguarden D.E. 1978. How do nontimber values affect Douglas-fir rotations? Journal of Forestry 76 (4) 217–221.

  • Campbell E.T. Tilley D.R. 2014. The eco-price: How environmental emergy equates to currency. Ecosystem Services 7 128–140. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.12.002.

  • Centemeri L. 2015. Reframing Problems of Incommensurability in Environmental Conflicts Through Pragmatic Sociology: From Value Pluralism to the Plurality of Modes of Engagement with the Environment. Environmental Values 24 (3) 299–320. http://doi.org/10.3197/096327114X13947900181158.

  • Chang S. 1983. Rotation age management intensity and the economic factors of timber production: do changes in stumpage price interest rate regeneration cost and forest taxation matter? Forest Science 29 267–277.Clark C.W. 1973. The economics of overexploitation. Science 181 (4100) 630–634.

  • Costanza R. 2002. New editor for ecological economics. Ecological Economics 42 (3) 351–352. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00178-7.

  • Crocker T.D. 2002. A short history of environmental and resource economics. In: Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics (ed.: J.C.J.M. van den Bergh). Edward Elgar Publishing Cheltenham UK 32–45.

  • Deng H. Zheng P. Liu T. Liu X. 2011. Forest Ecosystem Services and Eco-Compensation Mechanisms in China. Environmental Management 48 (6) 1079–1085. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9742-0.

  • Doherty E. Murphy G. Hynes S. Buckley C. 2014. Valuing ecosystem services across water bodies: Results from a discrete choice experiment. Ecosystem Services 7 89–97. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.09.003.

  • Endres M. 1919. Lehrbuch der Waldwertrechnung. Forststatic 3.

  • Farley J. Costanza R. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecological Economics 69 (11) 2060–2068.

  • Faustmann M. 1849. Berechnung des Wertes welchen Waldboden sowie noch nicht haubare Holzbestände für die Waldwirtschaft besitzen. Allgemeine Forst-Und Jagd-Zeitung 15 (1849) 7–44.

  • Foster D.R. 1992. Land-use history (1730–1990) and vegetation dynamics in central New-England USA. Journal of Ecology 80 (4) 753–772. http://doi.org/10.2307/2260864.

  • Gaffney M. 2008. Keeping land in capital theory – Ricardo Faustmann Wicksell and George. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 67 (1) 119–141. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2007.00562.x.

  • Gan J. Kolison S.H. Colletti J.P. 2001. Optimal forest stock and harvest with valuing non-timber benefits: a case of US coniferous forests. Forest Policy and Economics 2 (2) 167–178. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(01)00051-X.

  • Garcia-Llorente M. Martin-López B. Diiaz S. Montes C. 2011. Can ecosystem properties be fully translated into service values? An economic valuation of aquatic plant services. Ecological Applications 21 (8) 3083–3103.

  • Hartman R. 1976. The harvesting decision whena standing forest has valuea. Economic Inquiry 14 (1) 52–58.

  • Holland A. 2011. What do we do about bleakness? Environmental Values 20 (3) 315–321.

  • Kaffashi S. Shamsudin M.N. Radam A. Rahim K.A. Yacob M.R. Muda A. Yazid M. 2011. Economic valuation of Shadegan International Wetland Iran: notes for conservation. Regional Environmental Change 11 (4) 925–934. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-011-0225-x.

  • Kates R.W. Clark W.C. Corell R. Hall J.M. Jaeger C.C. Lowe I. 2001. Sustainability science. Science 292 (5517) 641–642.

  • Lehr J. Borggreve B. 1879. Die Forstreinertragslehre insbesondere die sog. forstliche Statik Prof. Dr. G. Heyers nach ihrer wissenschaftlichen Nichtigkeit und wirthschaftlichen Gefährlichkeit Oberförster in Bonn Lehrer der Forstwissenschaft an der mit der Universität Bonn v. JSTOR.

  • Lowry S.T. 1965. The Classical Greek Theory of Natural Resource Economics. Land Economics 41 (3) 203–208. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3144852.

  • Luo D. Zhang W. 2014. A comparison of Markov model-based methods for predicting the ecosystem service value of land use in Wuhan central China. Ecosystem Services 7 57–65. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.11.001.

  • Manley B. Bare B.B. 2001. Computing maximum willingness to pay with Faustmann’s formula: some special situations from New Zealand. Forest Policy and Economics 2 (2) 179–193. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(01)00044-2.

  • Martin H. 2013. Die forstliche Statik: Ein Handbuch für leitende und ausführende Forstwirte sowie zum Studium und Unterricht. Springer-Verlag.

  • Martinez-Alier J. 2001. Mining conflicts environmental justice and valuation. Journal of Hazardous Materials 86 (1) 153–170.

  • Martinez-Alier J. Munda G.O’Neill J. 1998. Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecological Economics 26 (3) 277–286.

  • Mather A.S. 1992. The forest transition. Area 24 367–379.

  • Mather A.S. Needle C.L. 1998. The forest transition: a theoretical basis. Area 30 (2) 117–124.

  • Mcconnell K.E. Daberkow J.N. Hardie I.W. 1983. Planning timber production with evolving prices and costs. Land Economics 59 (3) 292–299. http://doi.org/10.2307/3145731.

  • Möhring B. 2001. The German struggle between the “Bodenreinertragslehre” (land rent theory) and “Waldreinertragslehre” (theory of the highest revenue) belongs to the past — but what is left? Forest Policy and Economics 2 (2) 195–201. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(01)00049-1.

  • Molenda T. 1945. Wycenianie nieruchomości leśnych w ekonomii i w technice. Koło Leśników UP Poznań.

  • Newman D.H. Gilbert C.B. Hyde W.F. 1985. The optimal forest rotation with evolving prices. Land Economics 61 (4) 347–353.

  • Nördlinger J.S. 1805. Versuch den Werth der Waldungen zu bestimmen. Diana 3 363–400.

  • Pearce D.W. Seccombe-Hett T. 2000. Economic valuation and environmental decision-making in Europe. Environmental Science and Technology 34 (8) 1419–1425.

  • Piekutin J. Skreta M. 2012. Ekonomiczny wiek rębności drzewostanów sosnowych. Sylwan 156 (10) 741–749.

  • Płotkowski L. 2010. Gospodarka leśna w badaniach ekonomiki leśnictwa. Rocznik Nauk Rolniczych Seria G 97 110–120.

  • Podgórski M. Kikayi R.P. 1996. Próba określenia produkcyjności i produktywności lasu za pomocą wskaźników technicznych i ekonomicznych na przykładzie nadleśnictw Regionalnej Dyrekcji Lasów Państwowych w Szczecinie. Prace Komisji Nauk Rolniczych i Komisji Nauk Leśnych. Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk 82 125–133.

  • Price C. 1987. Environmental benefits and optimal rotation: Comment on Johansson and Loefgren. Journal of Environmental Management 25 (3) 215–218.

  • Ramsey F.P. 1928. A mathematical theory of saving. The Economic Journal 38 (152) 543–559.

  • Riebel F. 1905. Die Wertermittlung der Obstbäume und anderer Einzelbäume. Fromme 88 pp.

  • Rudel T.K. Coomes O.T. Moran E. Achard F. Angelsen A. Xu J. Lambin E. 2005. Forest transitions: towards a global understanding of land use change. Global Environmental Change 15 (1) 23–31. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.11.001.

  • Shapiro J. Báldi A. 2014. Accurate accounting: How to balance ecosystem services and disservices. Ecosystem Services 7 201–202. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.01.002.

  • Shaw M.R. Pendleton L. Cameron D.R. Morris B. Bachelet D. Klausmeyer K. Roehrdanz P.R. 2011. The impact of climate change on California’s ecosystem services. Climatic Change 109 (1) 465–484. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0313-4.

  • Spangenberg J.H. Settele J. 2016. Value pluralism and economic valuation – defendable if well done. Ecosystem Services 18 100–109. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.02.008.

  • Staaland H. Holand Ø. Nellemann C. Smith M. 1998. Time scale for forest regrowth: abandoned grazing and agricultural areas in southern Norway. Ambio 27 456–460.

  • Tahvonen O. Salo S. 1999. Optimal Forest Rotation within SituPreferences. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 37 (1) 106–128. http://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1998.1055.

  • Thompson I.D. Okabe K. Tylianakis J.M. Kumar P. Brockerhoff E.G. Schellhorn N.A. Nasi R. 2011. Forest Biodiversity and the Delivery of Ecosystem Goods and Services: Translating Science into Policy. Bioscience 61 (12) 972–981. http://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.12.7.

  • Vankooten G.C. Binkley C.S. Delcourt G. 1995. Effect of carbon taxes and subsidies on optimal forest rotation age and supply of carbon services. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 77 (2) 365–374. http://doi.org/10.2307/1243546.

  • Viitala E.-J. 2016. Faustmann formula before Faustmann in German territorial states. Forest Policy and Economics 65 47–58. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.11.004.

  • Zając S. Świętojański A. 2002. Podstawy metodyczne wyceny lasu. Sylwan 3 (146) 5–20.

  • Zydroń A. Szafrański C. Korytowski M. 2012. Koncepcje określania wysokości leśnej stopy procentowej. Sylwan 156 (5) 333–342.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.67

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.312
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.569

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 219 120 4
PDF Downloads 157 67 2