IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i11p2085-d977477.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Opportunity Costs of In Situ Carbon Storage Derived by Multiple-Objective Stand-Level Optimization—Results from Case Studies in Portugal and Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Mengistie Kindu

    (Institute of Forest Management, TUM School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, D-85354 Freising, Germany)

  • Logan Robert Bingham

    (Institute of Forest Management, TUM School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, D-85354 Freising, Germany
    Forest Research Centre and Laboratory TERRA, School of Agriculture, University of Lisbon, 1649-004 Lisbon, Portugal)

  • José G. Borges

    (Forest Research Centre and Laboratory TERRA, School of Agriculture, University of Lisbon, 1649-004 Lisbon, Portugal)

  • Susete Marques

    (Forest Research Centre and Laboratory TERRA, School of Agriculture, University of Lisbon, 1649-004 Lisbon, Portugal)

  • Olha Nahorna

    (Forest Research Centre and Laboratory TERRA, School of Agriculture, University of Lisbon, 1649-004 Lisbon, Portugal
    Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 1432 Ås, Norway)

  • Jeannette Eggers

    (Department of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 901 83 Umeå, Sweden)

  • Thomas Knoke

    (Institute of Forest Management, TUM School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, D-85354 Freising, Germany)

Abstract

Considering in situ carbon storage in forest management has gained momentum under increasing pressure to decarbonize our economies. Here, we present results from case studies in Portugal and Germany showing the opportunity costs of in situ carbon storage derived by multiple-objective optimization. We used a stand-level model to optimize land expectation value under uncertainty as a reference, then derived opportunity costs by including the enhancement of the average carbon storage in aboveground biomass as a second objective. Using the optimal (compromise) solution when considering both objectives simultaneously, we show opportunity costs of EUR 119 (Portugal) and EUR 68 (Germany) per Mg CO 2eq . These opportunity costs are higher than conservative, but lower than alternative cost estimates for future damages caused by current CO 2 emissions. An important result was that suggested reference solutions in both countries (though only for low discount rates in Portugal) were mixed forests without clearfelling. In Germany, this implicitly elevated carbon storage. Such “closer-to-nature-forest-management” systems were also mostly suggested by the optimization tool when carbon storage was an objective.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:11:p:2085-:d:977477
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/11/2085/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/11/2085/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Price, Colin, 2018. "Declining discount rate and the social cost of carbon: Forestry consequences," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 39-45.
    2. Benitez, Pablo C. & McCallum, Ian & Obersteiner, Michael & Yamagata, Yoshiki, 2007. "Global potential for carbon sequestration: Geographical distribution, country risk and policy implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 572-583, January.
    3. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    4. Roger Sedjo & Brent Sohngen, 2012. "Carbon Sequestration in Forests and Soils," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 4(1), pages 127-144, August.
    5. Etienne Espagne & Antonin Pottier & Baptiste Perrissin Fabert & Franck Nadaud & Patrice Dumas, 2018. "SCCs and the use of IAMs: Let's separate the wheat from the chaff," International Economics, CEPII research center, issue 155, pages 29-47.
    6. 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.
    7. Thomas Knoke & Michael Weber, 2006. "Expanding Carbon Stocks in Existing Forests – A Methodological Approach for Cost Appraisal at the Enterprise Level," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 579-605, May.
    8. Köthke, Margret & Dieter, Matthias, 2010. "Effects of carbon sequestration rewards on forest management--An empirical application of adjusted Faustmann Formulae," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(8), pages 589-597, October.
    9. 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.
    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. Kolo, Horst & Kindu, Mengistie & Knoke, Thomas, 2020. "Optimizing forest management for timber production, carbon sequestration and groundwater recharge," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    12. Aino Assmuth & Janne Rämö & Olli Tahvonen, 2021. "Optimal Carbon Storage in Mixed-Species Size-Structured Forests," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(2), pages 249-275, June.
    13. 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).
    14. Augustynczik, Andrey Lessa Derci & Arce, Julio Eduardo & Yousefpour, Rasoul & da Silva, Arinei Carlos Lindbeck, 2016. "Promoting harvesting stands connectivity and its economic implications in Brazilian forest plantations applying integer linear programming and simulated annealing," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 120-129.
    15. Di Falco, Salvatore & Perrings, Charles, 2005. "Crop biodiversity, risk management and the implications of agricultural assistance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 459-466, December.
    16. West, Thales A.P. & Wilson, Chris & Vrachioli, Maria & Grogan, Kelly A., 2019. "Carbon payments for extended rotations in forest plantations: Conflicting insights from a theoretical model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 70-76.
    17. Gernot Wagner & David Anthoff & Maureen Cropper & Simon Dietz & Kenneth T. Gillingham & Ben Groom & J. Paul Kelleher & Frances C. Moore & James H. Stock, 2021. "Eight priorities for calculating the social cost of carbon," Nature, Nature, vol. 590(7847), pages 548-550, February.
    18. Katharine Ricke & Laurent Drouet & Ken Caldeira & Massimo Tavoni, 2018. "Country-level social cost of carbon," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(10), pages 895-900, October.
    19. Marques, Marlene & Juerges, Nataly & Borges, José G., 2020. "Appraisal framework for actor interest and power analysis in forest management - Insights from Northern Portugal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    20. Simon Dietz & James Rising & Thomas Stoerk & Gernot Wagner, 2022. "Reply to Keen et al.: Dietz et al. modeling of climate tipping points is informative even if estimates are a probable lower bound," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 119(21), pages 2201191119-, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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. Santos, Georgina, 2022. "Climate change policy and carbon pricing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    3. 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).
    4. Yannis Dafermos & Maria Nikolaidi, 2019. "Fiscal policy and ecological sustainability," FMM Working Paper 52-2019, IMK at the Hans Boeckler Foundation, Macroeconomic Policy Institute.
    5. 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).
    6. Zamora-Pereira, Juan Carlos & Hanewinkel, Marc & Yousefpour, Rasoul, 2023. "Robust management strategies promoting ecological resilience and economic efficiency of a mixed conifer-broadleaf forest in Southwest Germany under the risk of severe drought," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Lurdes Jesus Ferreira & Luís Pereira Dias & Jieling Liu, 2022. "Adopting Carbon Pricing Tools at the Local Level: A City Case Study in Portugal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-20, February.
    9. Gren, Ing-Marie & Zeleke, Abenezer Aklilu, 2016. "Policy design for forest carbon sequestration: A review of the literature," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 128-136.
    10. G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2023. "Determining optimal forest rotation ages and carbon offset credits: Accounting for post‐harvest carbon storehouses," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 71(2), pages 255-272, June.
    11. Yannis Dafermos & Maria Nikolaidi, 2019. "Fiscal policy and ecological sustainability: A post-Keynesian perspective," Working Papers PKWP1912, Post Keynesian Economics Society (PKES).
    12. Kovacs, Kent F. & Haight, Robert G. & Moore, Karli & Popp, Michael, 2021. "Afforestation for carbon sequestration in the Lower Mississippi River Basin of Arkansas, USA: Does modeling of land use at fine spatial resolution reveal lower carbon cost?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    13. Lessa Derci Augustynczik, Andrey & Yousefpour, Rasoul, 2021. "Assessing the synergistic value of ecosystem services in European beech forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    14. Yanay Farja & Mariusz Maciejczak, 2021. "Economic Implications of Agricultural Land Conversion to Solar Power Production," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-15, September.
    15. Kuokkanen, Anna & Sihvonen, Markus & Uusitalo, Ville & Huttunen, Anna & Ronkainen, Tuuli & Kahiluoto, Helena, 2020. "A proposal for a novel urban mobility policy: Personal carbon trade experiment in Lahti city," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    16. Moritz A. Drupp & Frikk Nesje & Robert C. Schmidt & Robert Christian Schmidt, 2022. "Pricing Carbon," CESifo Working Paper Series 9608, CESifo.
    17. Knoke, Thomas & Steinbeis, Otto-Emmanuel & Bösch, Matthias & Román-Cuesta, Rosa María & Burkhardt, Thomas, 2011. "Cost-effective compensation to avoid carbon emissions from forest loss: An approach to consider price-quantity effects and risk-aversion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1139-1153, April.
    18. Qian Zhou & Feng Gui & Benxuan Zhao & Jingyi Liu & Huiwen Cai & Kaida Xu & Sheng Zhao, 2024. "Examining the Social Costs of Carbon Emissions and the Ecosystem Service Value in Island Ecosystems: An Analysis of the Zhoushan Archipelago," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-19, January.
    19. Tesfaye, Wondimagegn & Tirivayi, Nyasha, 2020. "Crop diversity, household welfare and consumption smoothing under risk: Evidence from rural Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    20. Guariso, Giorgio & Sangiorgio, Matteo, 2019. "Multi-objective planning of building stock renovation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 101-110.

    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:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:11:p:2085-:d:977477. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.