We calculate expected bare land values, assuming forestry is the highest and best land use, using a real options methodology with stochastic mean-reverting timber and carbon prices. Land values relect the contribution of both timber as well as carbon stored in three separate pools—the forest, harvested wood products, and emissions avoided by using wood versus carbon-intensive substitute materials. Land values reflect one of three sequestration scenarios that vary the percentages of carbon sequestered in the three pools relative to the carbon sequestered in the forest just prior to the harvest activity. At harvest time, the value of the carbon sequestered in the three pools determines if the forest owner retains income gained from the sale of carbon credits, or must purchase credits to offset emissions associated with the harvest activity. A case study involving a hypothetical western Washington Douglas-fir stand suggests that carbon sequestration may be a significant income contribution for forest owners if the three carbon pools are recognized as credible offsets. However, the income contribution is sensitive to the amount of credit realized for carbon sequestered in each of the pools. The analysis demonstrates the significance of including carbon sequestered in the three separate pools when designing carbon offset policies.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
The forest carbon pool discussed here only includes carbon contained in merchantable timber as given by the yield curve, and it excludes carbon stored in, for example, soils, roots, or foliage.
Several facts were used in determining the value of γ. First of these was the composition of CO2: 44.0 g of CO2 contains 12 g of carbon. The value of the conversion factor from merchantable timber yield to carbon yield is equal to 14.38 lbs of carbon per cubic foot of Douglas fir. Finally, the factor converting timber volume from thousands of board feet, MBF, to thousands of cubic feet, MCF, was set to the average of conversion factors for the small and large Scribner rules at 0.115 MCF per MBF.
Presently, carbon exchanges do not recognize the substitution pool and place restrictions on the harvested wood product pool when granting off-set credits.
Although harvesting a forest stand as young as five years is extremely uncommon, the minimum harvest age was set to this low value for the sake of completeness of simulation results.
Adams, D. M., Alig, R. J., Anderson, D. J., Stevens, J. A., & Chmelik, J. T. (1992). Future prospects for western Washington’s timber supply (Technical Report No. 74). Seattle, WA, USA: Institute of Forest Resources, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington.
Brazee, R. J., & Newman, D. H. (1999). Observation on recent forest economics research on risk and uncertainty. Journal of Forest Economics, 5(2), 193–200.
Chladná, Z. (2007). Determination of optimal rotation period under stochastic wood and carbon prices. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(8), 1031–1045.
Faustmann, M. (1849). On the determination of the value which forest land and immature stands possess for forestry. Oxford Institute Paper 42. (1968) English translation edited by M. Gane entitled Martin Faustmann and the Evolution of Discounted Cash Flow.
Gjolberg, O., & Guttormsen, A. G. (2002). Real options in the forest: what if prices are mean-reverting? Forest Policy and Economics, 4(1), 13–20.
Gong, P., & Kristrom, B. (1999). Regulating forest rotation to increase CO2 sequestration, Arbetsrapport (Vol. 272). SLU (Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet), Institutionen for skogsekonomi.
Guthrie, G., & Kumareswaran, D. (2009). Carbon subsidies, taxes and optimal forest management. Environmental & Resource Economics, 43(2), 275–293.
Haight, R. G., & Holmes, T. P. (1991). Stochastic price models and optimal tree cutting: results for loblolly pine. Natural Resource Modeling, 5(4), 423–443.
Hildebrandt, P., & Knoke, T. (2011). Investment decisions under uncertainty–a methodological review on forest science studies. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(1), 1–15.
Ibáñez, A., & Zapatero, F. (2004). Monte Carlo valuation of American options through computation of the optimal exercise frontier. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 39(2), 253–275.
Insley, M. C., & Rollins, K. (2005). On solving the multirotational timber harvesting problem with stochastic prices: a linear complementarity formulation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(3), 735–755.
Khajuria, R. P., Kant, S., & Laaksonen-Craig, S. (2009). Valuation of timber harvesting options using a contingent claims approach. Land Economics, 85(4), 655–674.
Lippke, B., & Perez-Garcia, J. (2008). Will either cap and trade or a carbon emissions tax be effective in monetizing carbon as an ecosystem service? Forest Ecology and Management, 256, 2160–2165.
Lohmander, P. (2000). Optimal sequential forestry decisions under risk. Annals of Operations Research, 95, 217–228.
Niquidet, K., & Manley, B. (2007). Price dynamics in the New Zealand log market. New Zealand Journal of Forestry, 52(3), 4–9.
Norstrom, C. J. (1975). A stochastic model for the growth period decision in forestry. The Swedish Journal of Economics, 77, 329–337.
Perez-Garcia, J., Lippke, B., Comnick, J., & Manriquez, C. (2005). An assessment of carbon pools, storage, and wood products market substitution using life-cycle analysis results. Wood and Fiber Science 37, CORRIM Special Issue:140–148.
Petrasek, S., & Perez-Garcia, J. (2010). A Monte Carlo methodology for solving the optimal timber harvest problem with stochastic timber and carbon prices. Mathematical and Computational Forestry & Natural-Resource Sciences, 2(2), 67–77.
Plantinga, A. J. (1998). The optimal timber rotation: an option value approach. Forest Science, 44(2), 192–202.
R Development Core Team (2008). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org, ISBN 3-900051-07-0.
Schwartz, E. S. (1997). The stochastic behavior of commodity prices: implications for valuation and hedging. The Journal of Finance, 52(3), 923–973.
Yin, R., & Newman, D. H. (1996). Are markets for stumpage informationally efficient? Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 26, 1032–1039.
The financial support for the analysis presented in this article was provided by the School of Environmental and Forest Sciences at the University of Washington.
About this article
Cite this article
Petrasek, S., Perez-Garcia, J. & Bare, B.B. Valuing forestlands with stochastic timber and carbon prices. Ann Oper Res 232, 217–234 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-013-1389-1
- Bare land value
- Real options
- Product life cycle
- Carbon offset pools