Lakehead University Library Logo
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   Knowledge Commons
    • Research and scholarly works
    • Faculty of Natural Resources Management
    • View Item
    •   Knowledge Commons
    • Research and scholarly works
    • Faculty of Natural Resources Management
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    quick search

    Browse

    All of Knowledge CommonsCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorTitleSubjectDisciplineAdvisorCommittee MemberThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorTitleSubjectDisciplineAdvisorCommittee Member

    My Account

    Login

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    Benefit–cost analysis of vegetation management alternatives: an Ontario case study

    Thumbnail

    View/Open

    luckai_benefit_2011a.pdf (1.735Mb)

    Date

    2011

    Author

    Luckai, Nancy J
    Homagain, Krishnahari
    Shahi, Chander
    Leitch, Mathew
    Bell, F. Wayne

    Subject

    Forest economics
    Herbicides
    Forest management
    Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVSOntario)

    Metadata

    Show full item record

    Abstract

    Vegetation 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.

    URI

    http://dx.doi.org/10.5558/tfc2011-013
    http://knowledgecommons.lakeheadu.ca/handle/2453/795

    Collections

    • Faculty of Natural Resources Management

    Citation

    The Forestry Chronicle, 2011, 87(2): 260-273, http://dx.doi.org/10.5558/tfc2011-013

    Lakehead University Library
    Contact Us | Send Feedback

     


    Lakehead University Library
    Contact Us | Send Feedback