Modelling and analyzing timber production and carbon sequestration values of forest ecosystems: a case study

• Autorzy: Keles S , Baskent E.Z.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The integration of carbon captured by forest ecosystems into forest management planning models has become increasingly more important, particularly in the areas of climate change, land use, and sustainable forest management. The main objective of this work is to develop a multiple-use forest management planning model that focuses on the interactions of net carbon sequestration and timber production opportunities in a forest ecosystem including forest openings. The linear programming model is used to develop various forest management scenarios for a forest that yields timber and carbon objectives. The results of forest management planning scenarios showed that increased net carbon sequestration can be attained at a significant cost in terms of forgone timber harvest and financial returns. Results also showed that reforestation of forest openings and long-term protection of forest ecosystems provides high biomass and carbon storage over the planning horizon.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

timber production; carbon sequestration; forest ecosystem; forest management; linear programming; reforestation

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Polish Journal of Environmental Studies
• Rocznik: 2007
• Tom: 16
• Numer: 3
• Opis fizyczny: p.473-479,ref.

Twórcy

autor

Keles S

• Karadeniz Technical University, 61080 Trabzon, Turkey

autor

Baskent E.Z.

Bibliografia

• 1. APPS M.J., KURZ W.A., BEUKEMA S.J., BHATTI J.S. Carbon budget of the Canadian forest product sector. Environmental Science & Policy 2, 25, 1999.
• 2. LIU J., PENG C., APPS M., DANG Q., BANFIELD E., KURZ W. Historic carbon budgets of Ontario’s forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management 169, 103, 2002.
• 3. KARJALAINEN T., PUSSINEN A., LISKI J., NABUURS G.J., ERHARD M., EGGERS T., SONNTAG M., MOHREN G.M.J. An approach towards an estimate of the impact of forest management and climate change on the European forest sector carbon budget: Germany as a case study. Forest Ecology and Management 162, 87, 2002.
• 4. KRCMAR E., VAN KOOTEN G.C., VERTINSKY I. Managing forest and marginal agricultural land for multiple tradeoffs: compromising on economic, carbon and structural diversity objectives. Ecological Modelling 185, 451, 2005.
• 5. HEAT L.S., SMITH J.E. An assessment of uncertainty in forest carbon budget projections. Environmental Science & Policy 3, 73, 2000.
• 6. VAN KOOTEN G.C., EAGLE A.J., MANLEY J., SMOLAK T. How costly are carbon offsets? A meta – analysis of carbon forest sinks. Environmental Science & Policy 7, 239, 2004.
• 7. SONG C., WOODCOCK C.E. A regional forest ecosystem carbon budget model: impacts of forest age structure and land use history. Ecological Modelling 164, 33, 2003.
• 8. NEWELL R.G., STAVINS R.N. Climate change and forest sinks: factors affecting the costs of carbon sequestration. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 40, 211, 2000.
• 9. MILNE R., BROWN T.A. Carbon in the vegetation and soils of Great Britain. Journal of Environmental Management 49, 413, 1997.
• 10. PUSSINEN A., KARJALAINEN T., KELLOMAKI S., MAKIPAA S. Potential contribution of the forest sector to carbon sequestration in Finland. Biomass and Bioenergy 13 (6), 377, 1997.
• 11. KARJALAINEN T., PUSSINEN A., KELLOMAKI S., MAKIPAA R. Scenarios for the carbon balance of Finnish forests and wood products. Environmental Science & Policy 2, 165, 1999.
• 12. BATEMAN I.J., LOVETT A.A. Estimating and valuing the carbon sequestered in softwood and hardwood trees, timber products and forest soils in Wales. Journal of Environmental Management 60, 301, 2000.
• 13. MASERA O.R., GARZA-CALIGARIS J.F., KANNINEN M., KARJALAINEN T., LISKI J., NABUURS G.J., PUSS-INEN A., DE JONG B.H.J., MOHREN G.M.J. Modeling carbon sequestration in afforestation, agroforestry and forest management projects: the CO2 FIX V.2 approach. Ecological Modelling 164, 177, 2003.
• 14. HOEN H.F., SOLBERG B. Potential and economic efficiency of carbon sequestration in forest biomass through silvicultural management. Forest Science 40, 429, 1994.
• 15. KRCMAR E., STENNES B., VAN KOOTEN G.C., VERTINSKY I. Carbon sequestration and land management under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research 135, 616, 2001.
• 16. DIAZ–BALTEIRO L., ROMERO C. Forest management optimisation models when carbon captured is considered: a goal programming approach. Forest Ecology and Management 174, 447, 2003.
• 17. RAYMER A.K.P., GOBAKKE N T., HOEN H.F., SOLBERG B. Optimal forest management and cost-effectivenes when increasing the carbon benefit from a forest area – a case study of Hedmark County in Norway. Manuscript. In PhD thesis of Raymer “Modeling and analyzing climate gas impacts of forest management”, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, pp. 23, 2005.
• 18. ERCANLI I. Construction of variable density table for oriental spruce in Artvin forest enterprise. Msc thesis. Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Forestry, p. 93, 2003.
• 19. CARUS S. Growth and yield of even – aged oriental beech. PhD thesis. Istanbul University, Faculty of Forestry, p. 359, 1999.
• 20. SUN O., EREN E., ORPAK M. Rates of wood products of various forest species in Turkey. TÜBITAK/TOAG-288, Research paper, 1977.
• 21. TÜRKER M.F. Forest management lecturer notes. Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Forestry, Lecturer’s notes, No: 59, Trabzon – Turkey, pp. 226, 2000.
• 22. ASAN Ü., DESTAN S., ÖZKAN U.Y. Istanbul korularinin karbon depolama, oksijen üretimi ve toz tutma kapasitesinin kestirilmesi. Orman Amenajamaninda Kavramsal Açilimlarve Yeni Hedefler Sempozyumu, Bildiriler Kitabi, Istanbul- Türkiye, pp. 194-202, 2002.
• 23. YOLASIĞMAZ H.A. The concept and the implementation of forest ecosystem management (a case study of Artvin Planning Unit). PhD thesis. Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Forestry, pp. 185, 2004.
• 24. STRANGE N., TARP P., HELLES F., BRODIE J.D. A four–stage approach to evaluate management alternatives in multiple – use forestry. Forest Ecology and Management 124, 79-91, 1999.
• 25. KAIPAINEN T., LISKI J., PUSSINEN A., KARJALAINEN T. Managing carbon sinks by changing rotation length in European forests. Environmental Science & Policy 7, 205, 2004.
• 26. JOHNSON K.N., SCHEURMAN H.L. Techniques for prescribing optimal timber harvest and investment under different objectives – discussion and synthesis. Forest Science, Monograph No: 18, pp. 31, 1977.
• 27. FIELD R.C., DRESS P.E., FORTSON J.C. Complementary linear and goal programming procedures for timber harvest scheduling. Forest Science 26, 121, 1980.
• 28. HOF J.G., PICKENS J.B., BARLETTD E.T. A maxmin approach to non-declining yield timber harvest scheduling problems. Forest Science 32, 663, 1986.
• 29. HAIGHT R.G., MONSERUI R.A., CHEW J.D. Optimal harvesting with stand density targets: Managing Rocky Mountain Conifer Stands for multiple forest outputs. Forest Science 38, 554, 1992.
• 30. HOGANSON H.M., MCDILL M.E. More on forest regulation: An LP perspective. Forest Science 39, 321, 1993.
• 31. CREEDY J., WURZBACHER A.D. The economic value of a forested catchment with timber, water and carbon sequestration benefits. Ecological Economics 38, 71, 2001.
• 32. HUSTON M., MARLAND G. Carbon management and biodiversity. Journal of Environmental Management 67, 77, 2003.