Economic Feasibility and Management Considerations in Range Revegetation

Abstract

Although range researchers and managers involved in range revegetation often have little economics training, economic analysis is usually a crucial step in range revegetation decisions. This synthesis paper is intended to provide a useful background in economic analysis for teachers, students, and natural resource professionals who deal with range revegetation. First, 3 economic standards by which all revegetation projects must be judged are described and interpreted: (1) economic feasibility, (2) economic efficiency, and/or (3) cost effectiveness. Next, the information required for economic analysis and the analytical procedures used to evaluate range revegetation projects are described. A detailed reseeding example is then used to describe the following information requirements: project costs, benefits, value of benefits, interest rate (including real vs. nominal rates), risk, project life (including life extension and grazing deferment), and range site selected for revegetation. Last, procedures for determining optimal vegetation conversion and use are reviewed, emphasizing the vegetation response function as the key to balancing the 3 determinants of long-term net returns: initial vegetation conversion, grazing intensity, and project life.

Rangeland Condition Assessment Based on Economic Criteria

“…There are already various methods for such economic evaluations in the context of natural resources (Valentine, 1971;Macleod & Johnston, 1990;Turner et al, 1999;Tietenberg, 2006;Harris, 2006;Hacket, 2006;Hanley, 2007;Lipton, 1995;Workman, 1984;Workman et al, 1991;Neumann & Hirsch, 2000;Gram, 2001;Mattson & Li, 1993;Mankiw, 2009). Although many of these methods cannot present completely accurate results, they are used in a wide and effective manner in the economic justification of utilisation plans.…”

How Much Sagebrush Is too Much: An Economic Threshold Analysis

“…The availability function was based on observations by Hull and Klomp (1974) and assumed to be linear between 40 and 90% as big sagebrush canopy varied from 34 to 0%. Workman and Tanaka (1991) illustrate several cases which suggest as utilization of forage increases and or sagebrush mortality decreases, reinvasion of sagebrush increases. In the first dynamic case illustrated by Workman and Tanaka (1991) a 50% utilization rate and 95% initial overstory removal is assumed.…”

“…Workman and Tanaka (1991) illustrate several cases which suggest as utilization of forage increases and or sagebrush mortality decreases, reinvasion of sagebrush increases. In the first dynamic case illustrated by Workman and Tanaka (1991) a 50% utilization rate and 95% initial overstory removal is assumed. This case resulted in a 20 year project life due to big sagebrush encroachment, while a 75% utilization rate and 95% mortality on sagebrush resulted in a 15 year project life.…”

“…Nielsen and Hinckley (1975) and Stevens and Godfrey (1976) used lease rate approaches to value additional forage from range improvements. Workman and Tanaka (1991) state that in many cases valuing revegetation benefits as privately leased forage is simple, straightforward and often yields accurate estimates of the value of additional forage particularly when the operation currently leases and or can avoid leasing forage in the future due to the improvement.…”

Rangeland resource trends in the United States: A technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment

“…Across broad scales, primary production on rangelands is limited by fairly constant abiotic factors such as mean annual precipitation, potential evapotranspiration, temperature, and soil texture (Webb et al 1983, Sala et al 1988, Epstein et al 1997. Therefore, any increases in production will rely upon advances in technology, rangeland restoration based upon existing technology that largely rely upon increasingly uneconomical energy inputs (Workman and Tanaka 1991), and/or substantial and widespread changes in rangeland health (Committee on Rangeland Classifi cation 1994).…”