Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLuckai, Nancy J
dc.contributor.authorHomagain, Krishnahari
dc.contributor.authorShahi, Chander
dc.contributor.authorLeitch, Mathew
dc.contributor.authorBell, F. Wayne
dc.identifier.citationThe Forestry Chronicle, 2011, 87(2): 260-273,
dc.descriptionThis is the publisher’s version of a work published in The Forestry Chronicle 87:2 (2011) The version on the publisher's website can be viewed at
dc.description.abstractVegetation management practices are an integral component of forest management. In this paper, we report results of stand-level benefit–cost analyses of 12 vegetation management treatments applied at six study sites in northern Ontario. Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVSOntario) was used to project gross total and merchantable volumes to 70 years of age, and BUCK-2 was used to optimize potential products. Net present value (NPV), benefit–cost ratio (BCR), and internal rate of return (IRR) were calculated using 2009 constant dollars and variable real discount rates. Aerial herbicide treatments produced the highest NPV, BCR, and IRR. Internal rates of return of 4.32%, 2.90%, 2.82% and 2.50% for aerial herbicide, manual brush cutting, ground-applied herbicide, and brush cutting plus herbicide treatments, respectively, indicated that all of the vegetation management alternatives evaluated are economically viable.en_US
dc.subjectForest economicsen_US
dc.subjectForest managementen_US
dc.subjectForest Vegetation Simulator (FVSOntario)en_US
dc.titleBenefit–cost analysis of vegetation management alternatives: an Ontario case studyen_US

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Faculty of Natural Resources Management
    Natural resources management is stewardship of both public and private primarily (mainly) forested landscapes, with the intension of reaching a balance of ecological sustainability, economic viability and societal acceptance of prescribed land use.

Show simple item record