Can forestry be a competitive land use option?
Identifieur interne : 000C73 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000C72; suivant : 000C74Can forestry be a competitive land use option?
Auteurs : A. Nieuwenhuyse ; H. Hengsdijk ; B. A. M Bouman ; R. A Schipper ; H. G P. JansenSource :
- Forest Ecology and Management [ 0378-1127 ] ; 2000.
English descriptors
Abstract
Model simulations are carried out to study options for managed natural forest and melina (Gmelina arborea) and teak (Tectona grandis) plantations on land suited for agriculture in the humid tropical Atlantic lowlands of Costa Rica. Tools used are a linear programming model that maximizes regional economic surplus, and the so-called technical coefficient generators that quantify input and outputs of forestry and competing crop and pasture-based beef cattle production systems. Model scenarios are carried out for varying prices of wood, beef and labor, under conditions of unlimited and restricted wood markets. Results indicate that teak and melina plantations are attractive land use options while managed natural forest is not. With unlimited wood demand, teak occupies 70% of the study area and total yearly teak production exceeds current Costa Rican wood consumption, indicating the need to include market mechanisms in the study. The area under teak is relatively insensitive to price changes between –40 and +60% of the base value of $95m−3 (1996 stumpage price). The area under melina changes considerably with price changes of ±20% of the base value of US$16m−3. Natural forest revenues must rise by 440% of the current $32m−3 to make it economically more attractive than other land use options, especially pasture for beef production and melina plantations. Increasing labor costs are likely to favor tree plantations. Increasing beef prices considerably reduce the competitiveness of melina, though not that of teak.
Url:
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00310-2
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:EDB87F5DBD2C34A1111568B586BE2EC38AAAB585Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Can forestry be a competitive land use option?</title><author><name sortKey="Nieuwenhuyse, A" sort="Nieuwenhuyse, A" uniqKey="Nieuwenhuyse A" first="A" last="Nieuwenhuyse">A. Nieuwenhuyse</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: andreas@mail.megalink.com</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Hengsdijk, H" sort="Hengsdijk, H" uniqKey="Hengsdijk H" first="H" last="Hengsdijk">H. Hengsdijk</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Bouman, B A M" sort="Bouman, B A M" uniqKey="Bouman B" first="B. A. M" last="Bouman">B. A. M Bouman</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Schipper, R A" sort="Schipper, R A" uniqKey="Schipper R" first="R. A" last="Schipper">R. A Schipper</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Economics and Management, Development Economics Group, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Jansen, H G P" sort="Jansen, H G P" uniqKey="Jansen H" first="H. G P" last="Jansen">H. G P. Jansen</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:EDB87F5DBD2C34A1111568B586BE2EC38AAAB585</idno><date when="2000" year="2000">2000</date><idno type="doi">10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00310-2</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/EDB87F5DBD2C34A1111568B586BE2EC38AAAB585/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000C73</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000C73</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Can forestry be a competitive land use option?</title><author><name sortKey="Nieuwenhuyse, A" sort="Nieuwenhuyse, A" uniqKey="Nieuwenhuyse A" first="A" last="Nieuwenhuyse">A. Nieuwenhuyse</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: andreas@mail.megalink.com</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Hengsdijk, H" sort="Hengsdijk, H" uniqKey="Hengsdijk H" first="H" last="Hengsdijk">H. Hengsdijk</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Bouman, B A M" sort="Bouman, B A M" uniqKey="Bouman B" first="B. A. M" last="Bouman">B. A. M Bouman</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Schipper, R A" sort="Schipper, R A" uniqKey="Schipper R" first="R. A" last="Schipper">R. A Schipper</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Economics and Management, Development Economics Group, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Jansen, H G P" sort="Jansen, H G P" uniqKey="Jansen H" first="H. G P" last="Jansen">H. G P. Jansen</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Forest Ecology and Management</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">FORECO</title><idno type="ISSN">0378-1127</idno><imprint><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><date type="published" when="2000">2000</date><biblScope unit="volume">137</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1–3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="23">23</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="40">40</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0378-1127</idno></series><idno type="istex">EDB87F5DBD2C34A1111568B586BE2EC38AAAB585</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00310-2</idno><idno type="PII">S0378-1127(99)00310-2</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0378-1127</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Costa Rica</term><term>Linear programming</term><term>Managed natural forest</term><term>Teak and melina plantations</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Model simulations are carried out to study options for managed natural forest and melina (Gmelina arborea) and teak (Tectona grandis) plantations on land suited for agriculture in the humid tropical Atlantic lowlands of Costa Rica. Tools used are a linear programming model that maximizes regional economic surplus, and the so-called technical coefficient generators that quantify input and outputs of forestry and competing crop and pasture-based beef cattle production systems. Model scenarios are carried out for varying prices of wood, beef and labor, under conditions of unlimited and restricted wood markets. Results indicate that teak and melina plantations are attractive land use options while managed natural forest is not. With unlimited wood demand, teak occupies 70% of the study area and total yearly teak production exceeds current Costa Rican wood consumption, indicating the need to include market mechanisms in the study. The area under teak is relatively insensitive to price changes between –40 and +60% of the base value of $95m−3 (1996 stumpage price). The area under melina changes considerably with price changes of ±20% of the base value of US$16m−3. Natural forest revenues must rise by 440% of the current $32m−3 to make it economically more attractive than other land use options, especially pasture for beef production and melina plantations. Increasing labor costs are likely to favor tree plantations. Increasing beef prices considerably reduce the competitiveness of melina, though not that of teak.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>elsevier</corpusName><author><json:item><name>A Nieuwenhuyse</name><affiliations><json:string>E-mail: andreas@mail.megalink.com</json:string><json:string>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>H Hengsdijk</name><affiliations><json:string>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>B.A.M Bouman</name><affiliations><json:string>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>R.A Schipper</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Economics and Management, Development Economics Group, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>H.G P Jansen</name><affiliations><json:string>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Teak and melina plantations</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Managed natural forest</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Linear programming</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Costa Rica</value></json:item></subject><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>Full-length article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Model simulations are carried out to study options for managed natural forest and melina (Gmelina arborea) and teak (Tectona grandis) plantations on land suited for agriculture in the humid tropical Atlantic lowlands of Costa Rica. Tools used are a linear programming model that maximizes regional economic surplus, and the so-called technical coefficient generators that quantify input and outputs of forestry and competing crop and pasture-based beef cattle production systems. Model scenarios are carried out for varying prices of wood, beef and labor, under conditions of unlimited and restricted wood markets. Results indicate that teak and melina plantations are attractive land use options while managed natural forest is not. With unlimited wood demand, teak occupies 70% of the study area and total yearly teak production exceeds current Costa Rican wood consumption, indicating the need to include market mechanisms in the study. The area under teak is relatively insensitive to price changes between –40 and +60% of the base value of $95m−3 (1996 stumpage price). The area under melina changes considerably with price changes of ±20% of the base value of US$16m−3. Natural forest revenues must rise by 440% of the current $32m−3 to make it economically more attractive than other land use options, especially pasture for beef production and melina plantations. Increasing labor costs are likely to favor tree plantations. Increasing beef prices considerably reduce the competitiveness of melina, though not that of teak.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.796</score><pdfVersion>1.2</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>522 x 745 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>4</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>1531</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>6909</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>41771</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>18</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>233</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Can forestry be a competitive land use option?</title><pii><json:string>S0378-1127(99)00310-2</json:string></pii><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>137</volume><pii><json:string>S0378-1127(00)X0101-6</json:string></pii><pages><last>40</last><first>23</first></pages><issn><json:string>0378-1127</json:string></issn><issue>1–3</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><title>Forest Ecology and Management</title><publicationDate>2000</publicationDate></host><categories><wos><json:string>science</json:string><json:string>forestry</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>applied sciences</json:string><json:string>agriculture, fisheries & forestry</json:string><json:string>forestry</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>2000</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2000</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00310-2</json:string></doi><id>EDB87F5DBD2C34A1111568B586BE2EC38AAAB585</id><score>0.036114905</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/EDB87F5DBD2C34A1111568B586BE2EC38AAAB585/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/EDB87F5DBD2C34A1111568B586BE2EC38AAAB585/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/EDB87F5DBD2C34A1111568B586BE2EC38AAAB585/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Can forestry be a competitive land use option?</title><title level="a" type="sub" xml:lang="en">Model simulations from humid tropical Costa Rica</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><availability><p>©2000 Elsevier Science B.V.</p></availability><date>2000</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content">Fig. 1: Location of the NAZ study area.</note><note type="content">Fig. 2: Structure of the SOLUS methodology. Boxes are models/tools; ovals are data; blank names are activities; drawn lines are flow of data; dotted lines are flow of information.</note><note type="content">Fig. 3: Unrestricted wood market situation. Areas selected for different land uses versus labor price changes. Base run labor price (100%)=$0.97h−1.</note><note type="content">Fig. 4: Unrestricted wood market situation. Areas selected for different land uses versus teak price changes. Base run teak price (100%)=$95m−3 (stumpage price).</note><note type="content">Fig. 5: Unrestricted wood market situation. Areas selected for different land uses versus melina price changes. Base run melina price (100%)=$16m−3 (stumpage price).</note><note type="content">Fig. 6: Unrestricted wood market situation. Areas selected for different land uses versus cattle price changes. Base run cattle price (100%)=$0.79kg−1 live weight.</note><note type="content">Fig. 7: Restricted wood market situation. Areas selected for different land uses versus labor price changes. Base run labor price (100%)=$0.97h−1.</note><note type="content">Fig. 8: Restricted wood market situation. Areas selected for different land uses versus natural forest wood price changes. Base run wood price (100%)=$32m−3 (stumpage price).</note><note type="content">Fig. 9: Restricted wood market situation. Areas selected for different land uses versus melina price changes. Base run melina price (100%)=$16m−3 (stumpage price).</note><note type="content">Fig. 10: Restricted wood market situation. Areas selected for different land uses versus cattle price changes. Base run cattle price (100%)=$0.79kg−1 live weight.</note><note type="content">Fig. 11: The effect of cattle prices on soils selected for teak production.</note><note type="content">Table 1: Overview of modelled land use options</note><note type="content">Table 2: Selected characteristics of forestry production systems</note><note type="content">Table 3: Results of base scenarios for unrestricted and restricted wood market conditions</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Can forestry be a competitive land use option?</title><title level="a" type="sub" xml:lang="en">Model simulations from humid tropical Costa Rica</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">A</forename><surname>Nieuwenhuyse</surname></persName><email>andreas@mail.megalink.com</email><note type="biography">Current address: Proyecto ZONISIG, Casilla 14533, La Paz, Bolivia.</note><note type="correspondence"><p>Corresponding author. Tel.: +591-2-420452; fax: +591-2-420452</p></note><affiliation>Current address: Proyecto ZONISIG, Casilla 14533, La Paz, Bolivia.</affiliation><affiliation>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">H</forename><surname>Hengsdijk</surname></persName><affiliation>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-3"><persName><forename type="first">B.A.M</forename><surname>Bouman</surname></persName><affiliation>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-4"><persName><forename type="first">R.A</forename><surname>Schipper</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Economics and Management, Development Economics Group, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-5"><persName><forename type="first">H.G P</forename><surname>Jansen</surname></persName><affiliation>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Forest Ecology and Management</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">FORECO</title><idno type="pISSN">0378-1127</idno><idno type="PII">S0378-1127(00)X0101-6</idno><imprint><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><date type="published" when="2000"></date><biblScope unit="volume">137</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1–3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="23">23</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="40">40</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">EDB87F5DBD2C34A1111568B586BE2EC38AAAB585</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00310-2</idno><idno type="PII">S0378-1127(99)00310-2</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2000</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Model simulations are carried out to study options for managed natural forest and melina (Gmelina arborea) and teak (Tectona grandis) plantations on land suited for agriculture in the humid tropical Atlantic lowlands of Costa Rica. Tools used are a linear programming model that maximizes regional economic surplus, and the so-called technical coefficient generators that quantify input and outputs of forestry and competing crop and pasture-based beef cattle production systems. Model scenarios are carried out for varying prices of wood, beef and labor, under conditions of unlimited and restricted wood markets. Results indicate that teak and melina plantations are attractive land use options while managed natural forest is not. With unlimited wood demand, teak occupies 70% of the study area and total yearly teak production exceeds current Costa Rican wood consumption, indicating the need to include market mechanisms in the study. The area under teak is relatively insensitive to price changes between –40 and +60% of the base value of $95m−3 (1996 stumpage price). The area under melina changes considerably with price changes of ±20% of the base value of US$16m−3. Natural forest revenues must rise by 440% of the current $32m−3 to make it economically more attractive than other land use options, especially pasture for beef production and melina plantations. Increasing labor costs are likely to favor tree plantations. Increasing beef prices considerably reduce the competitiveness of melina, though not that of teak.</p></abstract><textClass xml:lang="en"><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>Keywords</head><item><term>Teak and melina plantations</term></item><item><term>Managed natural forest</term></item><item><term>Linear programming</term></item><item><term>Costa Rica</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2000">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/EDB87F5DBD2C34A1111568B586BE2EC38AAAB585/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Elsevier, elements deleted: ce:floats; body; tail"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//ES//DTD journal article DTD version 4.5.2//EN//XML" URI="art452.dtd" name="istex:docType"><istex:entity SYSTEM="gr1" NDATA="IMAGE" name="gr1"></istex:entity><istex:entity SYSTEM="gr2" NDATA="IMAGE" name="gr2"></istex:entity><istex:entity SYSTEM="gr3" NDATA="IMAGE" name="gr3"></istex:entity><istex:entity SYSTEM="gr4" NDATA="IMAGE" name="gr4"></istex:entity><istex:entity SYSTEM="gr5" NDATA="IMAGE" name="gr5"></istex:entity><istex:entity SYSTEM="gr6" NDATA="IMAGE" name="gr6"></istex:entity><istex:entity SYSTEM="gr7" NDATA="IMAGE" name="gr7"></istex:entity><istex:entity SYSTEM="gr8" NDATA="IMAGE" name="gr8"></istex:entity><istex:entity SYSTEM="gr9" NDATA="IMAGE" name="gr9"></istex:entity><istex:entity SYSTEM="gr10" NDATA="IMAGE" name="gr10"></istex:entity><istex:entity SYSTEM="gr11" NDATA="IMAGE" name="gr11"></istex:entity></istex:docType><istex:document><converted-article version="4.5.2" docsubtype="fla" xml:lang="en"><item-info><jid>FORECO</jid><aid>4993</aid><ce:pii>S0378-1127(99)00310-2</ce:pii><ce:doi>10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00310-2</ce:doi><ce:copyright type="full-transfer" year="2000">Elsevier Science B.V.</ce:copyright></item-info><head><ce:title>Can forestry be a competitive land use option?</ce:title><ce:subtitle>Model simulations from humid tropical Costa Rica</ce:subtitle><ce:author-group><ce:author><ce:given-name>A</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Nieuwenhuyse</ce:surname><ce:cross-ref refid="FN1"><ce:sup>1</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref><ce:cross-ref refid="AFF1"><ce:sup>a</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref><ce:cross-ref refid="CORR1">*</ce:cross-ref><ce:e-address>andreas@mail.megalink.com</ce:e-address></ce:author><ce:author><ce:given-name>H</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Hengsdijk</ce:surname><ce:cross-ref refid="AFF1"><ce:sup>a</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref></ce:author><ce:author><ce:given-name>B.A.M</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Bouman</ce:surname><ce:cross-ref refid="AFF1"><ce:sup>a</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref><ce:cross-ref refid="AFF2"><ce:sup>b</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref></ce:author><ce:author><ce:given-name>R.A</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Schipper</ce:surname><ce:cross-ref refid="AFF3"><ce:sup>c</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref></ce:author><ce:author><ce:given-name>H.G P</ce:given-name><ce:surname>Jansen</ce:surname><ce:cross-ref refid="AFF1"><ce:sup>a</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref><ce:cross-ref refid="AFF3"><ce:sup>c</ce:sup></ce:cross-ref></ce:author><ce:affiliation id="AFF1"><ce:label>a</ce:label><ce:textfn>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</ce:textfn></ce:affiliation><ce:affiliation id="AFF2"><ce:label>b</ce:label><ce:textfn>DLO-Research Center for Agrobiology and Soil Fertility, Wageningen, The Netherlands</ce:textfn></ce:affiliation><ce:affiliation id="AFF3"><ce:label>c</ce:label><ce:textfn>Department of Economics and Management, Development Economics Group, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands</ce:textfn></ce:affiliation><ce:correspondence id="CORR1"><ce:label>*</ce:label><ce:text>Corresponding author. Tel.: +591-2-420452; fax: +591-2-420452</ce:text></ce:correspondence><ce:footnote id="FN1"><ce:label>1</ce:label><ce:note-para>Current address: Proyecto ZONISIG, Casilla 14533, La Paz, Bolivia.</ce:note-para></ce:footnote></ce:author-group><ce:date-received day="7" month="5" year="1999"></ce:date-received><ce:date-accepted day="8" month="10" year="1999"></ce:date-accepted><ce:abstract><ce:section-title>Abstract</ce:section-title><ce:abstract-sec><ce:simple-para>Model simulations are carried out to study options for managed natural forest and melina (<ce:italic>Gmelina arborea</ce:italic>) and teak (<ce:italic>Tectona grandis</ce:italic>) plantations on land suited for agriculture in the humid tropical Atlantic lowlands of Costa Rica. Tools used are a linear programming model that maximizes regional economic surplus, and the so-called technical coefficient generators that quantify input and outputs of forestry and competing crop and pasture-based beef cattle production systems. Model scenarios are carried out for varying prices of wood, beef and labor, under conditions of unlimited and restricted wood markets. Results indicate that teak and melina plantations are attractive land use options while managed natural forest is not. With unlimited wood demand, teak occupies 70% of the study area and total yearly teak production exceeds current Costa Rican wood consumption, indicating the need to include market mechanisms in the study. The area under teak is relatively insensitive to price changes between –40 and +60% of the base value of $95<ce:hsp sp="0.25"></ce:hsp>m<ce:sup>−3</ce:sup> (1996 stumpage price). The area under melina changes considerably with price changes of ±20% of the base value of US$16<ce:hsp sp="0.25"></ce:hsp>m<ce:sup>−3</ce:sup>. Natural forest revenues must rise by 440% of the current $32<ce:hsp sp="0.25"></ce:hsp>m<ce:sup>−3</ce:sup> to make it economically more attractive than other land use options, especially pasture for beef production and melina plantations. Increasing labor costs are likely to favor tree plantations. Increasing beef prices considerably reduce the competitiveness of melina, though not that of teak.</ce:simple-para></ce:abstract-sec></ce:abstract><ce:keywords class="keyword" xml:lang="en"><ce:section-title>Keywords</ce:section-title><ce:keyword><ce:text>Teak and melina plantations</ce:text></ce:keyword><ce:keyword><ce:text>Managed natural forest</ce:text></ce:keyword><ce:keyword><ce:text>Linear programming</ce:text></ce:keyword><ce:keyword><ce:text>Costa Rica</ce:text></ce:keyword></ce:keywords></head></converted-article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Can forestry be a competitive land use option?</title><subTitle>Model simulations from humid tropical Costa Rica</subTitle></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Can forestry be a competitive land use option?</title><subTitle>Model simulations from humid tropical Costa Rica</subTitle></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">A</namePart><namePart type="family">Nieuwenhuyse</namePart><affiliation>E-mail: andreas@mail.megalink.com</affiliation><affiliation>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</affiliation><description>Corresponding author. Tel.: +591-2-420452; fax: +591-2-420452</description><description>Current address: Proyecto ZONISIG, Casilla 14533, La Paz, Bolivia.</description><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">H</namePart><namePart type="family">Hengsdijk</namePart><affiliation>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">B.A.M</namePart><namePart type="family">Bouman</namePart><affiliation>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">R.A</namePart><namePart type="family">Schipper</namePart><affiliation>Department of Economics and Management, Development Economics Group, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">H.G P</namePart><namePart type="family">Jansen</namePart><affiliation>Research Program on Sustainability in Agriculture (REPOSA — UAW/CATIE/MAG), Guápiles, Costa Rica</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="Full-length article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>ELSEVIER</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2000</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2000</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Model simulations are carried out to study options for managed natural forest and melina (Gmelina arborea) and teak (Tectona grandis) plantations on land suited for agriculture in the humid tropical Atlantic lowlands of Costa Rica. Tools used are a linear programming model that maximizes regional economic surplus, and the so-called technical coefficient generators that quantify input and outputs of forestry and competing crop and pasture-based beef cattle production systems. Model scenarios are carried out for varying prices of wood, beef and labor, under conditions of unlimited and restricted wood markets. Results indicate that teak and melina plantations are attractive land use options while managed natural forest is not. With unlimited wood demand, teak occupies 70% of the study area and total yearly teak production exceeds current Costa Rican wood consumption, indicating the need to include market mechanisms in the study. The area under teak is relatively insensitive to price changes between –40 and +60% of the base value of $95m−3 (1996 stumpage price). The area under melina changes considerably with price changes of ±20% of the base value of US$16m−3. Natural forest revenues must rise by 440% of the current $32m−3 to make it economically more attractive than other land use options, especially pasture for beef production and melina plantations. Increasing labor costs are likely to favor tree plantations. Increasing beef prices considerably reduce the competitiveness of melina, though not that of teak.</abstract><note type="content">Fig. 1: Location of the NAZ study area.</note><note type="content">Fig. 2: Structure of the SOLUS methodology. Boxes are models/tools; ovals are data; blank names are activities; drawn lines are flow of data; dotted lines are flow of information.</note><note type="content">Fig. 3: Unrestricted wood market situation. Areas selected for different land uses versus labor price changes. Base run labor price (100%)=$0.97h−1.</note><note type="content">Fig. 4: Unrestricted wood market situation. Areas selected for different land uses versus teak price changes. Base run teak price (100%)=$95m−3 (stumpage price).</note><note type="content">Fig. 5: Unrestricted wood market situation. Areas selected for different land uses versus melina price changes. Base run melina price (100%)=$16m−3 (stumpage price).</note><note type="content">Fig. 6: Unrestricted wood market situation. Areas selected for different land uses versus cattle price changes. Base run cattle price (100%)=$0.79kg−1 live weight.</note><note type="content">Fig. 7: Restricted wood market situation. Areas selected for different land uses versus labor price changes. Base run labor price (100%)=$0.97h−1.</note><note type="content">Fig. 8: Restricted wood market situation. Areas selected for different land uses versus natural forest wood price changes. Base run wood price (100%)=$32m−3 (stumpage price).</note><note type="content">Fig. 9: Restricted wood market situation. Areas selected for different land uses versus melina price changes. Base run melina price (100%)=$16m−3 (stumpage price).</note><note type="content">Fig. 10: Restricted wood market situation. Areas selected for different land uses versus cattle price changes. Base run cattle price (100%)=$0.79kg−1 live weight.</note><note type="content">Fig. 11: The effect of cattle prices on soils selected for teak production.</note><note type="content">Table 1: Overview of modelled land use options</note><note type="content">Table 2: Selected characteristics of forestry production systems</note><note type="content">Table 3: Results of base scenarios for unrestricted and restricted wood market conditions</note><subject lang="en"><genre>Keywords</genre><topic>Teak and melina plantations</topic><topic>Managed natural forest</topic><topic>Linear programming</topic><topic>Costa Rica</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Forest Ecology and Management</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>FORECO</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><originInfo><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">20001015</dateIssued></originInfo><identifier type="ISSN">0378-1127</identifier><identifier type="PII">S0378-1127(00)X0101-6</identifier><part><date>20001015</date><detail type="volume"><number>137</number><caption>vol.</caption></detail><detail type="issue"><number>1–3</number><caption>no.</caption></detail><extent unit="issue pages"><start>1</start><end>262</end></extent><extent unit="pages"><start>23</start><end>40</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">EDB87F5DBD2C34A1111568B586BE2EC38AAAB585</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00310-2</identifier><identifier type="PII">S0378-1127(99)00310-2</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">©2000 Elsevier Science B.V.</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>ELSEVIER</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Elsevier Science B.V., ©2000</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Agronomie/explor/SisAgriV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000C73 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000C73 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Agronomie
|area= SisAgriV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:EDB87F5DBD2C34A1111568B586BE2EC38AAAB585
|texte= Can forestry be a competitive land use option?
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.28. |  |