Forest forecasts: does individual heterogeneity matter for market and landscape outcomes?

Pattanayak, Subhrendu K.; Abt, Robert C.; Sommer, Allan; Cubbage, Frederick W.; Murray, Brian C.; Yang, Jui‐Chen; Wear, David N.; Ahn, SoEun

doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2004.03.017

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Future research would benefit from considering heterogeneous behavior of decision makers (Pattanayak et al. ) and accounting for the fact that yield optimization is only one of many landowner goals (Sengupta et al. , Greiner et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Landscape patterns of bioenergy in a changing climate: implications for crop allocation and land‐use competition

Graves

Pearson

Turner

2016

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rural landscapes face changing climate, shifting development pressure, and loss of agricultural land. Perennial bioenergy crops grown on existing agricultural land may provide an opportunity to conserve rural landscapes while addressing increased demand for biofuels. However, increased bioenergy production and changing land use raise concerns for tradeoffs within the food-energy-environment trilemma. Heterogeneity of climate, soils, and land use complicate assessment of bioenergy potential in complex landscapes, creating challenges to evaluating future tradeoffs. The hypothesis addressed herein is that perennial bioenergy production can provide an opportunity to avoid agricultural land conversion to development. Using a process-based crop model, we assessed potential bioenergy crop growth through 2100 in a southern Appalachian Mountain region and asked: (1) how mean annual yield differed among three crops (switchgrass Panicum virgatum, giant miscanthus Miscanthus x giganteus, and hybrid poplar Populus x sp.) under current climate and climate change scenarios resulting from moderate and very high greenhouse gas emissions; (2) how maximum landscape yield, spatial allocation of crops, and bioenergy hotspots (areas with highest potential yield) varied among climate scenarios; and (3) how bioenergy hotspots overlapped with current crop production or lands with high development pressure. Under both climate change scenarios, mean annual yield of perennial grasses decreased (-4% to -39%), but yield of hybrid poplar increased (+8% to +20%) which suggests that a switch to woody crops would maximize bioenergy crop production. In total, maximum landscape yield increased by up to 90 000 Mg/yr (6%) in the 21st century due to increased poplar production. Bioenergy hotspots (> 18 Mg x ha(-1) x yr(-1)) consistently overlapped with high suburban/exurban development likelihood and existing row crop production. If bioenergy production is constrained to marginal (non-crop) lands, landscape yield decreased by 27%. The removal of lands with high development probability from crop production resulted in losses of up to 670 000 Mg/yr (40%). This study demonstrated that tradeoffs among bioenergy production, crop production, and exurban expansion in a mountainous changing rural landscape vary spatially with climate change over time. If markets develop, bioenergy crops could potentially counter losses of agricultural land to development.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Landscape patterns of bioenergy in a changing climate: implications for crop allocation and land‐use competition

Graves

Pearson

Turner

2016

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The topic of disturbances revolves around three issues: pests and diseases (7 papers), forest fires (3) and storms (2); they are approached through the economic cost and sectoral impacts of prevention measures or ex post recovery plans [124][125][126][127][128][129][130]. Only a few papers quantified the impacts of forest policy on habitat quality [104,131], and one paper quantifies water quality and quantity implications of climate mitigation policies [132]. They rely on specialized exogenous models, e.g.…”

Section: Research Questions and Transversal Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most common type of coupling is established with models in environmental sciences. These include general circulation models to account for climate change [43,151], landscape succession [102] or habitat quality models [46,131] to account for environmental impacts, or forest growth simulators and soil models to calculate carbon fluxes [89,152]. Another common linkage established is with energy models [153] or IAM [114], which is an alternative to the specialisation of FSM described earlier.…”

Section: Modelling Trends and Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolving Integrated Models From Narrower Economic Tools: the Example of Forest Sector Models

Rivière

Caurla

Delacote

2020

Environ Model Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrated simulation models are commonly used to provide insight on the complex functioning of social-ecological systems, often drawing on earlier tools with a narrower focus. Forest sector models (FSM) encompass a set of simulation models originally developed to forecast economic developments in timber markets but now commonly used to analyse climate and environmental policy. In this paper, we document and investigate this evolution through the prism of the inclusion of several non-timber objectives into FSM. We perform a systematic, quantitative survey of the literature followed by a more in-depth narrative review. Results show that a majority of papers in FSM research today focuses on non-timber objectives related to climate change mitigation, namely carbon sequestration and bioenergy production. Habitat conservation, deforestation and the mitigation of disturbances are secondary foci, while aspects such as forest recreation and many regulation services are absent. Non-timber objectives closest to the original targets of FSM, as well as those for which economic values are easier to estimate, have been more deeply integrated to the models, entering the objective function as decision variables. Others objectives are usually modelled as constraints and only considered through their negative economic impacts on the forest sector. Current limits to a deeper inclusion of non-timber objectives include the models' ability to represent local environmental conditions as well as the formulation of the optimisation problem as a maximisation of economic welfare. Recent research has turned towards the use of model couplings and the development of models at the local scale to overcome these limitations. Challenges for future research comprise extensions to other non-timber objectives, especially cultural services, as well as model calibration at lower spatial scales.

show abstract

Economics, Sustainability, and Forest Management

Kant

Berry

Economics, Sustainability, and Natural Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forest forecasts: does individual heterogeneity matter for market and landscape outcomes?

Cited by 8 publications

References 31 publications

Landscape patterns of bioenergy in a changing climate: implications for crop allocation and land‐use competition

Landscape patterns of bioenergy in a changing climate: implications for crop allocation and land‐use competition

Evolving Integrated Models From Narrower Economic Tools: the Example of Forest Sector Models

Economics, Sustainability, and Forest Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About