What is your discount rate? Experimental evidence of foresters’ risk and time preferences
• Key message
The elicited time preference rate of German foresters is around 4.1%. Foresters working for private enterprises are more risk-averse and have a lower time preference than other foresters. This group difference should be taken into account for modeling and policy making.
Due to very long rotations, forestry investment calculations heavily depend on the underlying discount rate. There is an ongoing debate about the appropriate discount rate to apply in forestry, particularly in light of concerns regarding inter-generational justice, forest risks, and the provision of future positive externalities from forestry. For sound policy making however, knowledge is lacking on the risk and time preferences of foresters.
The present study aims to provide detailed information about risk and time preferences as essential aspects of the discounting behavior.
Therefore, we conducted an economic experiment with 142 German foresters. Both risk and time preferences affect discounting behavior, which is why they are estimated jointly but analyzed specifically.
Participating foresters’ risk attitudes range between risk-neutral and very risk-averse, where the sample can be mostly characterized as risk-averse. Time preference discount rates range mostly between 0 and 7%, with 4.1% as a central value. These results are group-specific: foresters working for a private forest enterprise are more risk-averse and have a lower discount rate than other participating foresters.
Foresters’ time preferences exceed the usual rates of return in German forestry, which might be explained by additional utility attributed to forest amenity values or the risk-decreasing effects of forest assets in their portfolio.
KeywordsTime preference Risk attitude Foresters Economic experiment Maximum likelihood estimation Policy support
The authors would like to thank Bernhard Möhring for constructive discussions and two anonymous referees and the editors for helpful comments and suggestions.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Anderson J, Burks SV, Carpenter J, Götte L, Maurer K, Nosenzo D, Potter R, Rocha K, Rustichini A (2013) Self-selection and variations in the laboratory measurement of other-regarding preferences across subject pools: evidence from one college student and two adult samples. Exp Econ 16(2):170–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Atmadja SS, Sills EO (2013) Forest management and landowners’ discount rates in the Southern United States. In: Kant S (ed) Post-Faustmann forest resource economics, sustainability, economics, and natural resources. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp 91–123Google Scholar
- Brunette M, Foncel J, Kéré EN (2014) Attitude towards risk and production decision: an empirical analysis on French private forest owners. Centre d’études et de recherches internationales working paper no 2014-10, Montréal, FranceGoogle Scholar
- Bullard S, Gunter JE (2002) Discount rates for nonindustrial private forest landowners in Mississippi: how high a hurdle?. South J Appl For 26(1):26–31Google Scholar
- Exadaktylos F, Espín AM, Branas-Garza P (2013) Experimental subjects are not different. Sci Rep (3):1213Google Scholar
- FAO (2006) Time for action: changing the gender situation in forestry: Report of the team of specialists on gender and forestry. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), RomeGoogle Scholar
- Federal Statistical Office of Germany (2013a) Aufwendungen privater haushalte für den privaten konsum. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/EinkommenKonsumLebensbedingungen/Konsumausgaben/EVS_AufwendungprivaterHaushalte.html
- Federal Statistical Office of Germany (2013b) Erwerbstätigkeit in Deutschland - Ergebnisse des Zensus 2011. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Wirtschaftstatistik/Zensus/Erwerbstaetigkeit2011_92014.html
- Gerst JM (2015) Der Grenzzins als Entscheidungskriterium in der Forstwirtschaft: Methodisches Konzept und Empirische Evidenz, vol. 21 of Schriften zur Forst- und Umweltökonomie. Sauerländer Verlag, Bad OrbGoogle Scholar
- Harrison GW, Rutström EE (2008) Risk aversion in the laboratory. In: Cox JC, Harrison GW (eds) Risk aversion in experiments, research in experimental economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Bingley, Great Britain, pp 41–196Google Scholar
- Hepburn CJ, Koundouri P (2007) Recent advances in discounting: implications for forest economics. J For Econ 13(2-3):169–189Google Scholar
- Kant S (1999) Endogenous rate of time preference, traditional communities, and sustainable forest management. J Soc Econ Dev 2(1):65–87Google Scholar
- Kronrad GD, de Steiguer JE (1983) Relationships between discount rates and investment lengths among nonindustrial private landowners: small woodlot r&d program. Research Note Series (19)Google Scholar
- Möhring B (2014) Gibt es einen richtigen Zinssatz bei der forstlichen Wertermittlung?. Wertermittlungsforum 32(2):72–78Google Scholar
- OECD (1999) Classifying educational programmes: manual for ISCED-97 implementation in OECD countries. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Prestemon JP, Wear DN (2000) Linking harvest choices to timber supply. For Sci 46(3):377–389Google Scholar
- Price C (1993) Time, discounting, and value. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Price C (2011) Optimal rotation with declining discount rate. J For Econ 17(3):307–318Google Scholar
- Price C (2014) Temporal aspects in forest economics. In: Kant S, Alavalapati JRR (eds) Handbook of forest resource economics, Earthscan from Routledge. London, Great Britain, pp 50–66Google Scholar
- Sauter P, Hermann D, Musshoff O (2016) Risk attitudes of farmers, foresters and students: an experimental multimethod comparison. In: Australian agricultural and resource economics society (ed.), AARES 2016 annual conferenceGoogle Scholar