Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T18:34:47.797Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative Rents for Farmland and Timberland in a Subregion of the South

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2016

Ian W. Hardie
Ian W. Hardie*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study compares equivalent annual rents for two alternative land uses in a region where farming and timber plantations coexist. The comparison is motivated by the possibility that rising timber prices may stimulate timber processors to compete for farmland. Prices, costs, and market rents are assumed to first follow existing trends and then to reach steady state values. Market rents are projected and capitalized for agriculture. Internal soil rents are capitalized for timber. The results show timber to have a comparative advantage on high fertility sites and suggest that timber might become a competitive land use at the intensive margin of the region's farmland base.

Keywords

land renttimberdiscountingoptimal rotationsloblolly pineinvestment
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , December 1984 , pp. 45 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, Darius M. and Haynes, R. W. “The 1980 Softwood Timber Assessment Market Model: Structure, Projections and Policy Simulations.” Forest Science Monograph 22, (Supplement to Forest Science, 26(3)), 64 p., 1980.Google Scholar
Burkhart, Harold E. “Site Index Curves from Stem Analysis Data.”Supplement to Industry-VPI Cooperative Yield Study Report No. 6, 1972.Google Scholar
Burkhart, H. E., Parker, R. C., Strub, M. R. and Oderwald, R. G. Yields of Old-Field Loblolly Pine Plantations, Virginia Poly. Institute and State College, Division Forest and Wildlife Resource Pub. FWS-3-72, Blacksburg, Virginia, 51 p., 1972.Google Scholar
Clark, C. W. Mathematical Bioeconomics: The Optimal Management of Renewable Resources, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 352 p., 1976.Google Scholar
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Farm Real Estate Market Developments: Outlook and Situation, various issues, Washington, D.C..Google Scholar
Faustmann, Martin. “Calculation of the Value Which Forest Land and Immature Stands Possess for Forestry.” (In Martin Faustmann and the Evolution of Cash Flow, trans. Linnard, W., Oxford: Commonwealth Forestry Institute.) Originally published in 1849.Google Scholar
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. An Analysis of the Timber Situation in the United States: 1952-2030. (Review draft.) Washington, D.C, 541 p., 1980.Google Scholar
Gaffney, Mason M. Concept of Financial Maturity of Timber and Other Assets, N.C State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, Inf. Series 62, Raleigh, North Carolina, 105 p., 1957.Google Scholar
Hardie, I. W., Daberhow, J. N., and McConnell, K. E. “A Soil Rent Model with Variable Rotation Lengths.” Forest Science, 30(2):509–521, 1984.Google Scholar
Hardie, I. W. Optimal Management Plans for Loblolly Pine Plantations in the Mid-Atlantic Region, M. P. 906, Maryland Agri. Exp. Station, College Park, Maryland, 108 p., 1977.Google Scholar
Haynes, Richard W. and Adams, D. M. “Changing Perceptions of the U.S. Forest Sector: Implications for the RPA Timber Assessment.” Amer. J. Agr. Econ., 65(5):1002–1009, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heaps, T. and Neher, P. A. “The Economics of Forestry When the Rate of Harvest is Constrained.” J. Environ. Econ. and Mgt., 6:297–319, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, George and Gustafson, C.. “A New Methodological Approach for Estimating Agricultural Costs of Production.” ERS Staff Report AGES830513, National Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 20 p., 1983.Google Scholar
McConnell, K. E., Daberhow, J. N., and Hardie, I. W. “Planning Timber Production with Evolving Prices and Costs.” Land Econ., 59:292–299, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parket, R. C. Private Communication, 1974.Google Scholar
Ricardo, David. The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (chapter 2, “On Rent”), reprinted by Dent and Sons, Ltd., London, 1972. Originally published in 1821.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. “Economics of Forestry in an Evolving Society.” Econ. Inq. 14:466–492, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar