Is the waterboxx expensive or is it not? The answer to this question depends on the costs in comparison with the expected advantages. Using a car is more expensive than walking. However, in many cases the extra costs are accepted compared to the extra advantages of the car. So the majority of people prefers a car instead of walking although on first sight a car is more expensive than walking.

The same is valid for the waterboxx. When using fertile land the waterboxx is not necessary and one can plant seeds or trees without its use. However, fertile land can be used for annual crops that offer a higher IRR (internal rate of return) than trees. So we prefer to use fertile – expensive - land for these kind of crops. Fertile, more expensive land, makes the cost price of tree planting too high: the capital costs (capital and interest) of a high investment in land from the long period between the moment of planting until the moment of harvest of the trees make it almost impossible to have an interesting IRR with trees on expensive land.

This is where the Groasis waterboxx starts to play its important role. The instrument offers great savings as it allows us to plant trees on presently almost worthless land. This means that planting trees with the waterboxx investment on cheap land is cheaper than planting trees on expensive land. The waterboxx advantage is even triple: the investment is lower, the IRR is higher and an interesting part for every user is the (mostly untaxed) capital growth of almost worthless land to expensive land once there is a good and promising crop of trees coming.

So, is the waterboxx expensive or not? The answer is that in most cases it is more interesting to plant trees with the waterboxx on cheap land than to plant trees without the waterboxx on expensive land.