arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 1912.00269

Optimal forest rotation under carbon pricing and forest damage risk

Abstract

Forests will have two notable economic roles in the future: providing renewable raw material and storing carbon to mitigate climate change. The pricing of forest carbon leads to longer rotation times and consequently larger carbon stocks, but also exposes landowners to a greater risk of forest damage. This paper investigates optimal forest rotation under carbon pricing and forest damage risk. I provide the optimality conditions for this problem and illustrate the setting with numerical calculations representing boreal forests under a range of carbon prices and damage probabilities. The relation between damage probability and carbon price towards the optimal rotation length is nearly linear, with carbon pricing having far greater impact. As such, increasing forest carbon stocks by lengthening rotations is an economically attractive method for climate change mitigation, despite the forest damage risk. Carbon pricing also increases land expectation value and reduces the economic risks of the landowner. The production possibility frontier under optimal rotation suggests that significantly larger forests carbon stocks are achievable, but imply lower harvests. However, forests' societally optimal role between these two activities is not yet clear-cut; but rests on the future development of relative prices between timber, carbon and other commodities dependent on land-use.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Tommi Ekholm. 2019-11-30. Optimal forest rotation under carbon pricing and forest damage risk. https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.00269

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN