Advertisement

Debunking the forest rent model fallacy in a fully regulated forest

  • Sun Joseph ChangEmail author
  • Yan Chen
  • Fan Zhang
Commentary

Abstract

In this paper, we first show both mathematically and empirically that the forest rent model is the wrong model to determine the optimal rotation age of a fully regulated forest as long as the standing timber has value. We then demonstrate that even if the forest is acquired for free, a fully regulated forest based on the forest rent model is actually worth more than the present value of its annual income. By converting to a fully regulated forest with a shorter rotation under the land expectation model, a higher present value of over 10% can be realized.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research of the first and third authors supported in part by the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative State Research Program. Research of the second author supported in part by The Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (Grant No BK20140980). Approved for publication by the Director of the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station as manuscript Number 2018-241-32241.

Funding

The funding was provided by National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Grant No. LAB94315), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (Grant No. 20140980).

Supplementary material

10342_2019_1240_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (40 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 39 kb)

References

  1. Bentley WR, Fight R (1966) A zero interest comparison of forest rent and soil rent. For Sci 12(4):460Google Scholar
  2. Chang SJ (1984) The determination of the optimal rotation age: a theoretical analysis. For Ecol Manage 8(1984):137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Faustmann M (1849) Berechnung des Werthes, welchen Waldboden, sowie noch nicht haubare Holzbestände für die Waldwirthschaft besitzen. Allgemeine Forst- und Jagd-Zeitung 15:441–451Google Scholar
  4. Helmedag F (2018) From 1849 back to 1788: reconciling the Faustmann formula with the principle of maximum sustainable yield. Eur J For Res.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-018-1101-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Renewable Natural ResourcesLouisiana State University Agricultural CenterBaton RougeUSA
  2. 2.College of Economics and ManagementNanjing Forestry UniversityNanjingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations