2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2006.03.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Carbon credits and management of Scots pine and Norway spruce stands in Finland

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

6
75
4
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 92 publications
(86 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
(24 reference statements)
6
75
4
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Some authors, for instance, have used econometric approaches based on observations of landowners' actual behavior confronted with the opportunity costs of alternative 8 Forest biomass consists primarily of above-ground and below-ground tree components (stems, branches, leaves, and roots); other woody vegetation; and mosses, lichens and herbs. 9 The share varies however greatly among forest types. …”
Section: Carbon Benefitsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Some authors, for instance, have used econometric approaches based on observations of landowners' actual behavior confronted with the opportunity costs of alternative 8 Forest biomass consists primarily of above-ground and below-ground tree components (stems, branches, leaves, and roots); other woody vegetation; and mosses, lichens and herbs. 9 The share varies however greatly among forest types. …”
Section: Carbon Benefitsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The value of carbon varies in the literature and usually ranges from $0 to $200 per metric ton (Stainback and Alavalapati [10]). Like Pohjola and Valsta [9], we initially fix p c to 10 euros per ton and we will conduct some sensitivity analysis on this parameter.…”
Section: Carbon Benefitsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…35 For example, Sohngen and Brown (2008) find that no forest areas will be conserved at a price of $14/t CO 2 e in the U.S. south and west; by contrast, in our model, 45% of lands will be conserved at roughly $15/t CO 2 e ($9/t C temporary). See also van Kooten et al (1995), Gutrich and Howarth (2007), and Pohjola and Valsta (2007). The explanation for the particularly strong effect here may be that the economic returns from timber harvest are generally lower in the boreal than in many other regions (where timber grows faster and is closer to market), so the relative value of carbon compared to timber is often greater in the boreal.…”
Section: Effects On Harvested Area and Rotation Lengthmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Many forest planning models that incorporate carbon sequestration as optimization criteria have been reported in the literature (Hoen & Solberg 1994, Diaz-Balteiro & Romero 2003, Backéus et al 2005, Díaz-Balteiro & Rodriguez 2006, Pohjola & Valsta 2007, Keles & Baskent 2007, Baskent et al 2008, Bravo et al 2008, Raymer et al 2009, Cao et al 2010). In addition, several models quantifying carbon stored in teak trees have been developed (Cubero & Rojas 1999, Kraenzel et al 2003, Gera et al 2011.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%