Determining an Optimal Afforestation Policy: A Cost-Benefit Analysis

  • Susan Swinehart
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 18)


Afforestation, tree planting on land that otherwise would be fallow, is being discussed as a method for reducing net carbon emissions. This article summarizes Swinehart (1996), which presents a tool for determining the optimal level of domestic afforestation. The tool is TREES, a model that evaluates possible afforestation projects in the U.S. We present an overview of the model structure and data. One of the crucial data parameters is the valuation of carbon. The international price of carbon, as computed by MERGE, provides TREES with a one-way linkage with a global integrated assessment (GIA) model. Sequestration results for scenarios utilizing different carbon valuations are presented and are compared with results from traditional abatement measures. The policy implications from these results are discussed.


Carbon Sequestration Baseline Scenario Sequestration Rate Afforestation Program Timber Market 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, R.M., D.M. Adams, C.C. Chang, B.A. McCarl, and J.M. Callaway, “Sequestering Carbon on Agricultural Land: A Preliminary Analysis of Social Cost and Impacts on Timber Markets,” Contemporary Policy Issues, Vol. XI, No. 1, January 1993.Google Scholar
  2. Global Environmental Change Report, Cutter Information Corp., Vol. VII, No. 22, November 23,1995.Google Scholar
  3. Manne, Alan, and Richard Richels, “The Greenhouse Debate- Economic Efficiency, Burden Sharing, and Hedging Strategies,” The Energy Journal, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. Moulton, Robert J., and Kenneth R. Richards, “Costs of Sequestering Carbon Through Tree Planting and Forest Management in the United States,” General Technical Report WO-58, United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington D.C., 1990Google Scholar
  5. Moulton, Robert J., and Kenneth R. Richards, “Accelerated Tree Planting on Nonindustrial Private Lands,” White House Conference on Global Change, Washington D.C., July 1993.Google Scholar
  6. Richards, Kenneth R., Robert J. Moulton, and Richard A. Birdsey, “Cost of Creating Carbon Sinks in the U.S.”, Energy Convers. Mgmt, Vol. 34, No. 9–11: pp 905–912, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Richards, Kenneth R., Donald H. Rosenthal, Jae A. Edmonds, and Marshall Wise, “The Carbon Dioxide Emissions Game: Playing the Net,” May 26, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. Stavins, Robert N., “The Costs of Carbon Sequestration: A Revealed-Preference Approach,” [draft] September 1995.Google Scholar
  9. Swinehart, Susan., “Afforestation as a Method of Carbon Sequestration: A Cost-Benefit Analysis,” doctoral dissertation, Department of Operations Research, July 1996.Google Scholar
  10. USDA Forest Service, An Analysis of the Timber Situation in the US 1989–2040: A Technical Document Supporting the 1989 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO., General Technical Report RM-199, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. USDA Forest Service, Forest Resources of the United States, 1992 Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO., General Technical Report RM-234, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Swinehart
    • 1
  1. 1.Stanford UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations