The several different versions of continuous cover forestry provide different portfolios of market and non-market effects. The extra harvesting costs of group or shelterwood felling are likely to exceed any savings in regeneration costs. Better financial returns come from successive removal of the largest trees by single tree selection. Continuous cover forestry will not necessarily reduce adverse effects of commercial forestry on water catchment, and may increase loss of water from the forest canopy: the economic effects are estimable from required costs of capacity replacement. Some additional value from carbon retention might be derived in single tree selection systems. Whether additional recreation or biodiversity values could generally be attributed to continuous cover forestry is doubtful. Landscape benefits are also questionable, though a pilot study concluded that about €60 per hectare per year might be attributed locally. Because of the delay between the costs associated with conversion to continuous cover forestry and the benefits of a converted forest, the rate of discount affects whether conversion would be deemed worthwhile.