IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v44y2020ics2212041620300899.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimizing forest management for timber production, carbon sequestration and groundwater recharge

Author

Listed:
  • Kolo, Horst
  • Kindu, Mengistie
  • Knoke, Thomas

Abstract

Forest management decisions about species mixture and harvest time are usually bound to economic considerations. Ecosystem services (ES), aside from timber production, are hardly considered. Although the consideration of multiple ES became common in recent years, it is still unclear how ES can be integrated into forest optimization and how this changes forest management. To show possible changes when different ES are considered, our study examined the impact of the market value of three ES (timber production, carbon storage and groundwater recharge) on management decisions under different levels of risk. We included two common European tree species (European beech and Norway spruce) as well as market risks and the risk of stand failure in our optimization. We examined how the optimal species composition and harvest schedule change when considering different ES. The inclusion of different ES changes the optimal harvest schedule and species composition. Including carbon storage leads to small changes in harvest schedule and species composition. Adding groundwater recharge led to a diversified portfolio but it consisted completely of European beech. We also discuss ecological complexities so far not considered in our approach and their possible consequences for the results.

Suggested Citation

  • Kolo, Horst & Kindu, Mengistie & Knoke, Thomas, 2020. "Optimizing forest management for timber production, carbon sequestration and groundwater recharge," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:44:y:2020:i:c:s2212041620300899
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101147
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041620300899
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101147?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Knoke & Carola Paul & Patrick Hildebrandt & Baltazar Calvas & Luz Maria Castro & Fabian Härtl & Martin Döllerer & Ute Hamer & David Windhorst & Yolanda F. Wiersma & Giulia F. Curatola Fernández, 2016. "Compositional diversity of rehabilitated tropical lands supports multiple ecosystem services and buffers uncertainties," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, September.
    2. Triviño, María & Juutinen, Artti & Mazziotta, Adriano & Miettinen, Kaisa & Podkopaev, Dmitry & Reunanen, Pasi & Mönkkönen, Mikko, 2015. "Managing a boreal forest landscape for providing timber, storing and sequestering carbon," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 179-189.
    3. Friedrich, Stefan & Paul, Carola & Brandl, Susanne & Biber, Peter & Messerer, Katharina & Knoke, Thomas, 2019. "Economic impact of growth effects in mixed stands of Norway spruce and European beech – A simulation based study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 65-80.
    4. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Waage, Sissel & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 27-39.
    5. Lars Gamfeldt & Tord Snäll & Robert Bagchi & Micael Jonsson & Lena Gustafsson & Petter Kjellander & María C. Ruiz-Jaen & Mats Fröberg & Johan Stendahl & Christopher D. Philipson & Grzegorz Mikusiński , 2013. "Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 4(1), pages 1-8, June.
    6. Pang, Xi & Nordström, Eva-Maria & Böttcher, Hannes & Trubins, Renats & Mörtberg, Ulla, 2017. "Trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services under different forest management scenarios – The LEcA tool," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 67-79.
    7. Armstrong, Claire W., 2007. "A note on the ecological-economic modelling of marine reserves in fisheries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 242-250, April.
    8. Richard S.J. Tol, 2018. "The impact of climate change and the social cost of carbon," Working Paper Series 1318, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    9. Kristin B. Hulvey & Richard J. Hobbs & Rachel J. Standish & David B. Lindenmayer & Lori Lach & Michael P. Perring, 2013. "Benefits of tree mixes in carbon plantings," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(10), pages 869-874, October.
    10. Roessiger, Joerg & Griess, Verena C. & Härtl, Fabian & Clasen, Christian & Knoke, Thomas, 2013. "How economic performance of a stand increases due to decreased failure risk associated with the admixing of species," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 255(C), pages 58-69.
    11. Rupert Seidl & Dominik Thom & Markus Kautz & Dario Martin-Benito & Mikko Peltoniemi & Giorgio Vacchiano & Jan Wild & Davide Ascoli & Michal Petr & Juha Honkaniemi & Manfred J. Lexer & Volodymyr Trotsi, 2017. "Forest disturbances under climate change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 7(6), pages 395-402, June.
    12. Knoke, Thomas & Seifert, Thomas, 2008. "Integrating selected ecological effects of mixed European beech–Norway spruce stands in bioeconomic modelling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 210(4), pages 487-498.
    13. Fabian H. Härtl & Sebastian Höllerl & Thomas Knoke, 2017. "A new way of carbon accounting emphasises the crucial role of sustainable timber use for successful carbon mitigation strategies," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 22(8), pages 1163-1192, December.
    14. Knoke, Thomas & Paul, Carola & Härtl, Fabian & Castro, Luz Maria & Calvas, Baltazar & Hildebrandt, Patrick, 2015. "Optimizing agricultural land-use portfolios with scarce data—A non-stochastic model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 250-259.
    15. Assmuth, Aino & Tahvonen, Olli, 2018. "Optimal carbon storage in even- and uneven-aged forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 93-100.
    16. Tahvonen, Olli, 2016. "Economics of rotation and thinning revisited: the optimality of clearcuts versus continuous cover forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 88-94.
    17. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    18. Tyrväinen, Liisa & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Demand for enhanced forest amenities in private lands: The case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 4-13.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jarisch, Isabelle & Bödeker, Kai & Bingham, Logan Robert & Friedrich, Stefan & Kindu, Mengistie & Knoke, Thomas, 2022. "The influence of discounting ecosystem services in robust multi-objective optimization – An application to a forestry-avocado land-use portfolio," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    2. Knoke, Thomas & Gosling, Elizabeth & Thom, Dominik & Chreptun, Claudia & Rammig, Anja & Seidl, Rupert, 2021. "Economic losses from natural disturbances in Norway spruce forests – A quantification using Monte-Carlo simulations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    3. Rössert, Sebastian & Gosling, Elizabeth & Gandorfer, Markus & Knoke, Thomas, 2022. "Woodchips or potato chips? How enhancing soil carbon and reducing chemical inputs influence the allocation of cropland," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    4. Mengistie Kindu & Logan Robert Bingham & José G. Borges & Susete Marques & Olha Nahorna & Jeannette Eggers & Thomas Knoke, 2022. "Opportunity Costs of In Situ Carbon Storage Derived by Multiple-Objective Stand-Level Optimization—Results from Case Studies in Portugal and Germany," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-12, November.
    5. Lessa Derci Augustynczik, Andrey & Yousefpour, Rasoul, 2021. "Assessing the synergistic value of ecosystem services in European beech forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Knoke, Thomas & Kindu, Mengistie & Jarisch, Isabelle & Gosling, Elizabeth & Friedrich, Stefan & Bödeker, Kai & Paul, Carola, 2020. "How considering multiple criteria, uncertainty scenarios and biological interactions may influence the optimal silvicultural strategy for a mixed forest," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    2. Friedrich, Stefan & Paul, Carola & Brandl, Susanne & Biber, Peter & Messerer, Katharina & Knoke, Thomas, 2019. "Economic impact of growth effects in mixed stands of Norway spruce and European beech – A simulation based study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 65-80.
    3. Luz Maria Castro & Fabian Härtl & Santiago Ochoa & Baltazar Calvas & Leonardo Izquierdo & Thomas Knoke, 2018. "Integrated bio-economic models as tools to support land-use decision making: a review of potential and limitations," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 183-211, July.
    4. Morag F. Macpherson & Adam Kleczkowski & John R. Healey & Chris Quine & Nick Hanley, 2016. "The Effects of Invasive Pests and Diseases on Strategies for Forest Diversification," Discussion Papers in Environment and Development Economics 2016-11, University of St. Andrews, School of Geography and Sustainable Development.
    5. van den Belt, Marjan & Stevens, Sharon M., 2016. "Transformative agenda, or lost in the translation? A review of top-cited articles in the first four years of Ecosystem Services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 60-72.
    6. Mäntymaa, Erkki & Artell, Janne & Forsman, Jukka T. & Juutinen, Artti, 2023. "Is it more important to increase carbon sequestration, biodiversity, or jobs? A case study of citizens' preferences for forest policy in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    7. Macpherson, Morag F. & Kleczkowski, Adam & Healey, John R. & Quine, Christopher P. & Hanley, Nick, 2017. "The effects of invasive pests and pathogens on strategies for forest diversification," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 350(C), pages 87-99.
    8. Susanne Neuner & Thomas Knoke, 2017. "Economic consequences of altered survival of mixed or pure Norway spruce under a dryer and warmer climate," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 519-531, February.
    9. Esther Reith & Elizabeth Gosling & Thomas Knoke & Carola Paul, 2020. "How Much Agroforestry Is Needed to Achieve Multifunctional Landscapes at the Forest Frontier?—Coupling Expert Opinion with Robust Goal Programming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-27, July.
    10. Jarisch, Isabelle & Bödeker, Kai & Bingham, Logan Robert & Friedrich, Stefan & Kindu, Mengistie & Knoke, Thomas, 2022. "The influence of discounting ecosystem services in robust multi-objective optimization – An application to a forestry-avocado land-use portfolio," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    11. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    12. Eyvindson, Kyle & Repo, Anna & Mönkkönen, Mikko, 2018. "Mitigating forest biodiversity and ecosystem service losses in the era of bio-based economy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 119-127.
    13. Brigite Botequim & Miguel N. Bugalho & Ana Raquel Rodrigues & Susete Marques & Marco Marto & José G. Borges, 2021. "Combining Tree Species Composition and Understory Coverage Indicators with Optimization Techniques to Address Concerns with Landscape-Level Biodiversity," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-26, January.
    14. Zhou, Peng & Zhang, Haijie & Huang, Bei & Ji, Yongli & Peng, Shaolin & Zhou, Ting, 2022. "Are productivity and biodiversity adequate predictors for rapid assessment of forest ecosystem services values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    15. Patto, João V. & Rosa, Renato, 2022. "Adapting to frequent fires: Optimal forest management revisited," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    16. Baral, Himlal & Guariguata, Manuel R. & Keenan, Rodney J., 2016. "A proposed framework for assessing ecosystem goods and services from planted forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 260-268.
    17. Hallberg-Sramek, Isabella & Nordström, Eva-Maria & Priebe, Janina & Reimerson, Elsa & Mårald, Erland & Nordin, Annika, 2023. "Combining scientific and local knowledge improves evaluating future scenarios of forest ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    18. Lee, Jongyeol & Lim, Chul-Hee & Kim, Gang Sun & Markandya, Anil & Chowdhury, Sarwat & Kim, Sea Jin & Lee, Woo-Kyun & Son, Yowhan, 2018. "Economic viability of the national-scale forestation program: The case of success in the Republic of Korea," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 40-46.
    19. Bastit, Félix & Brunette, Marielle & Montagné-Huck, Claire, 2023. "Pests, wind and fire: A multi-hazard risk review for natural disturbances in forests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    20. Thomas Knoke & Carola Paul & Elizabeth Gosling & Isabelle Jarisch & Johannes Mohr & Rupert Seidl, 2023. "Assessing the Economic Resilience of Different Management Systems to Severe Forest Disturbance," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(2), pages 343-381, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:44:y:2020:i:c:s2212041620300899. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.