Advertisement

Carbon Sequestration and Timber Production: A Bi-Criteria Optimisation Problem

  • Valeria Ríos
  • Luis Díaz-Balteiro
  • Carlos Romero
Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series (LNE, volume 465)

Abstract

This paper presents a multi-criteria approach to determine the optimal forest rotation age when timber production as well as carbon uptake are considered. With this purpose a utility function with two criteria (net present value and carbon uptake) is optimised over the corresponding production possibility frontier. The unknown optimum is surrogated by several best-compromise solutions which are interpreted in utility terms. The theoretical framework is applied to a coastal forest in British Columbia.

Keywords

Forest management compromise programming environmental economics. 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BALLESTERO, E. and ROMERO C. (1991), “A theorem connecting utility function optimization and compromise programming” Operations Research Letters 10, 421–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BALLESTERO, E. and ROMERO C. (1993), “Weighting in Compromise programming: a theorem on shadow prices”, Operations Research Letters 13, 325–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BALLESTERO, E. and ROMERO C. (1994), “Utility optimization when the utility function is virtually unknown”, Theory and Decision 37, 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. HARTMAN, R. (1976), “The harvesting decision when a standing forest has a value, Economic Inquiry” 14, 52–58.Google Scholar
  5. JOHANSSON, P-O. and LOFGREN, K-G. (1985) The Economics of Forestry and Natural Resources. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. LEWIS, D.K., TURNER, D.P. and WINJUM J.P. (1996), “An inventory-based procedure to estimate economic costs of forest management on a regional scale to conserve and sequester atmospheric carbon”, Ecological Economics 16, 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. MORON, M.A., ROMERO C. and RUIZ DEL PORTAL F.R. (1996), “Generating well-behaved utility functions for compromise programming”, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 91, 643–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. PIGOU, A.C. (1932) The Economics of Welfare, 4th de. Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  9. TURVEY, R. (1963), “On divergences between social and private cost”, Economica 30, 309–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. VAN KOOTEN, G.C., BINKLEY C.S. and 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, 365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Yu, P-L. (1973), “A class of solutions for group decision problems”, Management Science 19, 936–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Yu, P-L. (1985), Multiple-Criteria Decision Making. Concepts, Techniques and Applications. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. ZELENY, M. (1974), “A concept of compromise solutions and the method of the displaced ideal”, Computers and Operations Research 1, 479–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ZELENY, M. (1982), Multiple Criteria Decision Making. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valeria Ríos
    • 1
  • Luis Díaz-Balteiro
    • 2
  • Carlos Romero
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Economía y GestiónE.T.S. Ingenieros de MontesMadridSpain
  2. 2.Departamento de Economía y Ciencias Sociales AgrariasE.T.S. Ingenieros de MontesMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations