Financial considerations of policy options to enhance biomass utilization for reducing wildfire hazards

Becker, Dennis R.; Larson, Debra; Lowell, Eini C.

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2009.08.007

Cited by 26 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, canopy cover is a stand-level average of canopy conditions. In heterogeneous forests composed of tree groups, gaps, and a low-density matrix (Larson andChurchill 2012, North et al 2009b), most of the gaps and some of the matrix will likely have low canopy closure (i.e., the percentage of the sky hemisphere covered with foliage when viewed from a single point [Jennings et al 1999]). In contrast, canopy closure in tree clusters often exceeds 65 percent.…”

Section: Brian Oakleymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In some contexts, it may be necessary to remove sawlog-sized trees in intermediate or mid-canopy layers to reduce crown fire potential to acceptable levels (for an example from the synthesis area, see Schmidt et al 2008). Lack of wood products industry infrastructure has been found to be a major barrier to forest restoration and associated biomass utilization in many parts of the West, though the reasons for this lack are variable (Becker et al 2009a, Hjerpe et al 2009). Supporting remaining wood products industry infrastructure in order to prevent its further loss can help provide opportunities for biomass removal and utilization.…”

Section: Economic Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Supporting remaining wood products industry infrastructure in order to prevent its further loss can help provide opportunities for biomass removal and utilization. A number of authors have found that the cost of harvesting biomass, combined with the cost of transportation from the forest to the utilization facility, is an important factor limiting biomass use (Aguilar and Garrett 2009, Becker et al 2009a, Pan et al 2008. Becker et al (2009a) used a financial model called the Harvest Cost-Revenue Estimator to estimate cost-to-revenue thresholds for different biomass harvesting scenarios under three different categories of policy options and applied it to Southwestern ponderosa pine forests.…”

Section: Economic Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range

Long¹,

Quinn‐Davidson²,

Skinner³

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Brian Oakleymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Economic Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Economic Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range

Long¹,

Quinn‐Davidson²,

Skinner³

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Markets for removed biomass can be more robust and help overcome the cost barrier of hazardous fuel reduction when infrastructure to use biomass (either producers or end users) is close to forestlands where treatments take place (Becker et al 2009, Nielson-Pincus et al 2013. Local markets, rather than distant ones, have the benefit of reducing the cost of transporting biomass from the woods to the processor, which is a key hurdle in using biomass generated from forest management.…”

Section: Economic Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversity in forest management to reduce wildfire losses: implications for resilience

Charnley¹,

Spies²,

Barros³

et al. 2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. This study investigates how federal, state, and private corporate forest owners in a fire-prone landscape of southcentral Oregon manage their forests to reduce wildfire hazard and loss to high-severity wildfire. We evaluate the implications of our findings for concepts of social-ecological resilience. Using interview data, we found a high degree of "response diversity" (variation in forest management decisions and behaviors to reduce wildfire losses) between and within actor groups. This response diversity contributed to heterogeneous forest conditions across the landscape and was driven mainly by forest management legacies, economics, and attitudes toward wildfire (fortress protection vs. living with fire). We then used an agent-based landscape model to evaluate trends in forest structure and fire metrics by ownership. Modeling results indicated that, in general, U.S. Forest Service management had the most favorable outcomes for forest resilience to wildfire, and private corporate management the least. However, some state and private corporate forest ownerships have the building blocks for developing fire-resilient forests. Heterogeneity in social-ecological systems is often thought to favor social-ecological resilience. We found that despite high social and ecological heterogeneity in our study area, most forest ownerships do not exhibit characteristics that make them resilient to high-severity fire currently or in the future under current management. Thus, simple theories about resilience based on heterogeneity must be informed by knowledge of the environmental and social conditions that comprise that heterogeneity. Our coupled human and natural systems (CHANS) approach enabled us to understand connections among the social, economic, and ecological components of a multiownership, fire-prone ecosystem, and to identify how social-ecological resilience to wildfire might improve through interventions to address key constraints in the system. Our methods underscore the importance of looking beyond the present to future trajectories of change to fully understand the implications of current natural resource management practices for adaptation and social-ecological resilience to natural disturbances.

show abstract

“…Another method employed for classification was to categorize by the type of policy initiative (Pembina Institute 2005, Becker et al 2009, Becker et al 2011. The policy initiative categories that were considered for this review were modified from a Pembina Institute study produced in 2005, and were based on the degree of influence involved in regulations, economic incentives/disincentives, and information (Pembina Institute 2005).…”

Section: Classification Of Policy Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forest bioeconomy in Ontario – A policy discussion

Majumdar

Campbell

Maure

et al. 2017

The Forestry Chronicle

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ontario's forest sector has been undergoing a significant structural shift resulting from a more than decade-long trend of declining markets for traditional products. Though there have been signs of industry recovery, the forestry industry is still far smaller than it once was. In order to sustain and improve Ontario's economic position, we must develop policies and supporting programs that transition our forest economy to a more robust and diverse set of markets, including capitalizing on opportunities that come from a thriving and sustainable forest bioeconomy. The current suite of programs is fragmented and does not provide support for all types of bioproducts and policy initiatives, nor across all sections of the value chain. These factors, coupled with the lack of a clear strategic direction for the bioeconomy, have contributed to Ontario's slow emergence into the bioeconomy when compared to other jurisdictions. It is proposed that a key way to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of policy support for the emerging bioeconomy is to integrate and coordinate the actions of the government with industry and academia players involved in the bioproducts sector. Forest policy needs to take a balanced, integrated approach to promote all aspects of the bioeconomy to help ensure the eventual success of Ontario's forest bioeconomy.

show abstract

Financial considerations of policy options to enhance biomass utilization for reducing wildfire hazards

Cited by 26 publications

References 9 publications

Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range

Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range

Diversity in forest management to reduce wildfire losses: implications for resilience

Forest bioeconomy in Ontario – A policy discussion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About