Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 30, Issue 1–2, pp 75–86 | Cite as

Economic evaluation of financial and non-financial costs and benefits in agroforestry development and the value of sustainability

  • C. Price


Financial appraisal of agroforestry is not different in kind from appraisals applied to pure forestry. Existing techniques for valuing non-market effects may also be applied. Effects on hydrological and carbon fluxes might be less favourable than those of pure forests. In the confusing field of biodiversity valuation too, only limited and specific claims can be made for agroforestry. Amenity valuation techniques developed for trees and woodlands encounter additional problems of interpretation in an agroforestry context. Agroforestry may offer a quantifiable value in short-term sustainability, and might meet recent economic definitions of long-term sustainable development, without encountering the full dangers to future generations embodied in conversion of natural to human capital.

Key words

cost-benefit analysis environmental values futures non-market effects 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barrow P, Hinsley, AP and Price C (1986) The effect of afforestation on hydroelectricity generation: a quantitative assessment. Land Use Policy 3: 141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benson JF (1994) Values for forest landscapes using travel cost and tokens. Landscape Research 19: 23–25Google Scholar
  3. Blamey R and Common M (1994) Symbolic Responses in Contingent Valuation Studies. Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  4. Blandon P (1985) Agroforestry and portfolio theory. Agroforestry Systems 3: 239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broder JM and Odronic BH (1990) Economic potential of agroforestry for public recreational parks. Agroforestry Systems 10: 99–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Calder IR and Newson MD (1979) Land use and upland water resources in Britain-a strategic look. Water Resources Bulletin 15: 1628–1639Google Scholar
  7. Cline WR (1992) The Economics of Global Warming. Institute for International Economics, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Collett MEW (1970) External costs arising from the effects of forests upon streamflow in Britain. Forestry 43: 181–193Google Scholar
  9. Ehui SK, Kang BT and Spencer DSC (1990) Economic analysis of soil erosion effects in alley cropping, no-till and bush fallow systems in South Western Nigeria. Agricultural Systems 34: 349–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Falconer J (1990) Agroforestry and household food security. In: Prinsley RT (ed) Agroforestry for Sustainable Production, pp 215–239. Commonwealth Science Council, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Garrod GD and Willis KG (1992) Valuing goods' characteristics: an application of the hedonic pricing method to environmental attributes. Journal of Environmental Management 34: 59–76Google Scholar
  12. Gee AS and Stoner JH (1988) The effects of afforestation and acid deposition on the water quality and ecology of upland Wales. In: Usher MB and Thompson DBA (eds) Ecological Change in the Uplands, pp 273–287. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Gregory GR (1955) An economic approach to multiple use. Forest Science 1: 6–13Google Scholar
  14. Hanley ND and Ruffell R (1993) The contingent valuation of forest characteristics. Journal of Agricultural Economics 44: 218–229Google Scholar
  15. Hanley ND and Spash C (1993) Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. Harding RJ, Hall RL, Neal C, Roberts JM and Rosier PTW (1992) Hydrological impacts of Broadleaf Woodlands. National Rivers Authority, Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. Helliwell DR (1990) Amenity Valuation of Trees and Woodlands. Arboricultural Association, Romsey, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahneman D and Knetsch JL (1992) Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22: 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kay JA and Mirrlees JA (1975) The desirability of natural resource depletion. In: Pearce DW and Rose J (eds) The Economics of Natural Resource Depletion. Macmillan, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. Leeks GJL and Roberts G (1987) The effect of forestry on upland streams with special reference to water quality and sediment transport. In: Good JE (ed) Environmental Effects of Plantation Forestry in Wales, pp 9–25. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Bangor, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. Lilieholm RJ and Reeves LH (1991) Incorporating economic risk aversion in agroforestry planning. Agroforestry Systems 13: 63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Milner NJ and Varallo PV (1990) Effects of acidification on fish and fisheries in Wales. In: Edwards RW, Gee AS and Stoner JH (eds) Acid Waters in Wales, pp 121–143. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  23. Minter R (1994) Sharing common values. Landscape Research 19: 2–4Google Scholar
  24. Mitchell RC and Carson RT (1989) Using Surveys to Value Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  25. Pearce DW and Turner RK (1990) The Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, UKGoogle Scholar
  26. Price C (1987) Upland land use: towards the elusive balance. In: Bell M and Bunce RGH (eds) Agriculture and Conservation in the Hills and Uplands, pp 156–159. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Grange-over-Sands, UKGoogle Scholar
  27. Price C (1989) The Theory and Application of Forest Economics. Blackwell, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  28. Price C (1990) Deforestation and economic criteria. Project Appraisal 5: 159–166Google Scholar
  29. Price C (1991) Landscape Valuation and Public Decision Making. Countryside Commission, Cheltenham, UKGoogle Scholar
  30. Price C (1993a) Discounting diversity: a somewhat philosophical speculation. Scandinavian Forest Economics 34: 37–57Google Scholar
  31. Price C (1993b) Time, Discounting and Value. Blackwell, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  32. Price C (1995) Pros and cons of alternative evaluation methods. In: Willis KG and Corkindale J (eds) Environmental Valuation: New Directions, pp 160–177. CAB International, Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
  33. Price C and Willis RW (1993) Time, discounting and the valuation of forestry's carbon fluxes. Commonwealth Forestry Review 72: 265–271Google Scholar
  34. Randall A (1991) The value of biodiversity. Ambio 20(2): 64–68Google Scholar
  35. Reeves LH and Lilieholm RJ (1993) Reducing financial risk in agroforestry planning: a case study in Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems 21: 169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saville NM (1993) Bumblebee ecology in woodlands and arable farmland. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  37. Stone SW, Kyle SC and Conrad JM 91993) Application of the Faustmann principle to a shortrotation tree species: an analytical tool for economists, with reference to Kenya and leucaena. Agroforestry Systems 21: 79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Teklehaimanot, Z, Jarvis PG and Ledger DC (1991) Rainfall interception and boundary layer conductance in relation to tree spacing. Journal of Hydrology 123: 261–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wannawong S, Belt GH and McKetta CW (1991) Benefit-cost analysis of selected agroforestry systems in northeastern Thailand. Agroforestry Systems 16: 83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Westoby JC (1962) The role of forestry in the attack on economic underdevelopment. Unasylva 16: 168–201Google Scholar
  41. White S (1990) The technical costs and benefits of agroforestry to the catchment as a whole. In: Prinsley RT (ed) Agroforestry for Sustainable Production, pp 323–350. Commonwealth Science Council, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  42. Whitehead PG, Musgrove TJ and Cosby BJ (1990) Hydrochemical modelling of acidification in Wales. In: Edwards RW, Gee AS and Stoner JH (eds) Acid Waters in Wales, pp 255–277. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  43. Whiteman A (1994) The supply and demand for timber, recreation and community forest outputs from forests in Great Britain. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
  44. Willis RW, Thomas TH and Van Slycken J (1993) Poplar agroforestry: a re-evaluation of its economic potential on arable land in the United Kingdom. Forest Ecology and Management 57: 85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. World Commission on the Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Price
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Agricultural and Forest SciencesUniversity of WalesBangorUK

Personalised recommendations