Article ID Journal Published Year Pages File Type
91948 Journal of Forest Economics 2010 16 Pages PDF
Abstract

To assist pest management planning, the Canadian Forest Service developed the Spruce Budworm Decision Support System (SBW DSS), which quantifies the timber supply impacts of protecting stands against spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana Clem.) defoliation. We incorporated protection costs and timber product values in this system to evaluate economic aspects of spruce budworm control. The analysis allows pest managers to evaluate the degree to which the traditional volume protection priority objective corresponds to three economic criteria, namely the volume protected per dollar protection program cost, the benefit–cost ratio of the protection program, and the net present value of the protection program. Twelve alternative spruce budworm protection strategies were analyzed on Crown License 1 in New Brunswick and Prince Albert Forest Management Area (PAFMA) in Saskatchewan, based on a number of protection program extents and intensities. For both landbases under base-case market conditions, the largest, most intensive protection scenario provided the highest amount of volume saved and net present value (at 3.94 Mm3 and $39.98 M for PAFMA, and 4.04 Mm3 and $41.49 M for License 1, respectively) while smaller, less-intensive programs provided the highest benefit–cost ratios and volume protected per present value dollar of protection cost (at 8.22 and 0.52 m3/$ for PAFMA, and 10.26 and 0.65 m3/$ for License 1, respectively). Sensitivity analysis on product values and protection costs revealed that smaller, less-intensive programs could also produce the highest net present values when costs are higher and/or product values lower. These results highlight the conditions under which pest managers should consider deviating from their traditional strategy of maximizing volume saved to one that maximizes the economic returns of protection.

Related Topics
Life Sciences Agricultural and Biological Sciences Agronomy and Crop Science
Authors
, , ,