A Stochastic Dynamic Programming Model for Valuing a Eucalyptus Investment

  • M. Ricardo Cunha
  • Dalila B. M. M. Fontes
Part of the Springer Optimization and Its Applications book series (SOIA, volume 25)


This work proposes an exercise-dependent real options model for the valuation and optimal harvest timing of a forestry investment in eucalyptus. Investment in eucalyptus is complex, as trees allow for two cuts without replantation and have a specific time and growth window in which they are suitable for industrial processing into paper pulp. Thus, path dependency in the cutting options is observed, as the moment of exercise of the first option determines the time interval in which the second option may be exercised. Therefore, the value of the second option depends on the history of the state variables rather than on its final value. In addition, the options to abandon the project or convert land to another use, are also considered. The option value is estimated by solving a stochastic dynamic programming model. Results are reported for a case study in the Portuguese eucalyptus forest, which show that price uncertainty postpones the optimal cutting decisions. Moreover, optimal harvesting policies deviate from current practice of forest managers and allow for considerable gains.


Cash Flow Real Option Paper Pulp Extended Problem Geometric Brownian Motion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors would like to thank FCT for the financial support through scholarship BD/12610/03 and project POCI/MAT/61842/04.


  1. 1.
    Abildtrup, J. & Strange, N. (1999), ‘The option value of non-contaminated forest watersheds,’ Forest Policy and Economics 1, 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aliança Florestal (2002), Technical Internal Report:
  3. 3.
    Arrow, K. & Fisher, A. C. (1974), ‘Environmental preservation, uncertainty and irreversibility,’ Quarterly Journal of Economics 88, 312–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bailey, W. (1991), ‘Valuing agricultural firms: An examination of the contingent claims approach to pricing real assets,’ Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 15, 771–791.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Black, F. & Scholes, M. (1973), ‘The pricing of options and corporate liabilities,’ Journal of Political Economy 27, 637–654.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brennan, M. & Schwartz, E. (1985), ‘Evaluating natural resource investments,’ Journal of Business 58, 135–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    CELPA (Associação da Indústria Papeleira) :
  8. 8.
    Cox, J., Ross, S. & Rubinstein, M. (1979), ‘Option pricing: a simplified approach,’ Journal of Financial Economics 12, 229–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DGRF – Database (2001), Inventário Florestal Nacional by Direcção Geral dos Recursos Florestais:
  10. 10.
    Dixit, A. & Pindyck, R. S. (1994), Investment Under Uncertainty, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duku-Kaakyire, A. & Nanang, D. M. (2004), ‘Application of real options theory to forestry investment analysis,’ Forest Policy and Economics 6, 539–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations):
  13. 13.
    Gjolberg, O. & Guttornmsen, A. G. (2002), ‘Real options in the forest: What if prices are mean reverting,’ Forest Policy and Economics 4, 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Henry, C. (1974), ‘Option values in the economics of irreplaceable assets,’ Review of Economic Studies 41, 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    INE – Infoline (2001), Instituto Nacional de Estatística:
  16. 16.
    Insley, M. (2002), ‘A real options approach to the valuation of a forestry investment,’ Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44, 471–492.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Insley, M. & Rollins, K. (2005), ‘On solving the multirotational timber harvesting problem with stochastic prices: a linear complementarity formulation,’ American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87, 735–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Malchow-Mollera, N., Strangeb, N. & Thorsen, B. J. (2004), ‘Real-options aspects of adjacency constraints,’ Forest Policy and Economics 6, 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Merton, R. C. (1973), ‘An intertemporal capital asset pricing model,’ Econometrica 41, 867–887.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morck, R., Schwartz, E. & Stangeland, D. (1989), ‘The valuation of forestry resources under stochastic prices and inventories,’ Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 24(4), 473–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pindyck, R. S. (1991), ‘Irreversibility, uncertainty, and investment,’ Journal of Economic Literature 29(3), 1110–1148.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Portucel Setúbal (2002), Technical Internal Report:
  23. 23.
    Reed, W. (1993), ‘The decision to conserve or harvest old-growth forest,’ Ecological Economics 8, 45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Robichek, A. A. & Myers, S. (1966), ‘Conceptual problems in the use of risk-adjusted discount rates,’ Journal of Finance 21, 727–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sharpe, W. F. (1964), ‘Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk,’ Journal of Finance 19(3), 425–442.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thomson, T. A. (1992), ‘Option pricing and timberlands land-use conversion option: comment,’ Land Economics 68, 462–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tomé, M., Ribeiro, F. & Soares, P. (2001), O modelo glóbulus 2.1, Technical report, Grupo de Inventariação e Modelação de Recursos Naturais, Departamento de Engenharia Florestal, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wilmott, P. (1998), Derivatives, the Theory and Practice of Financial Engineering, Wiley, Chickester, UK.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yin, R. (2001), ‘Combining forest-level analysis with options valuation approach – a new framework for assessing forestry investment,’ Forest Science 47(4), 475–483.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zinkhan, F. (1991), ‘Option pricing and timberlands land-use conversion option,’ Land Economics 67, 317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade Católica Portuguesa and Lancaster UniversityFaculdade de Economia e GestãoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations