IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2023i1p280-d1309215.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Balancing Forest Regulations and Stakeholder Needs in Latvia: Modeling the Long-Term Impacts of Forest Management Strategies on Standing Volume and Carbon Storage

Author

Listed:
  • Daiga Zute

    (Latvian State Forest Research Institute ‘Silava’, Rigas 111, LV-2169 Salaspils, Latvia)

  • Valters Samariks

    (Latvian State Forest Research Institute ‘Silava’, Rigas 111, LV-2169 Salaspils, Latvia)

  • Guntars Šņepsts

    (Latvian State Forest Research Institute ‘Silava’, Rigas 111, LV-2169 Salaspils, Latvia)

  • Jānis Donis

    (Latvian State Forest Research Institute ‘Silava’, Rigas 111, LV-2169 Salaspils, Latvia)

  • Āris Jansons

    (Latvian State Forest Research Institute ‘Silava’, Rigas 111, LV-2169 Salaspils, Latvia)

Abstract

Forest ecosystems are significant carbon pools on a global scale, and also a source of renewable raw materials. Moreover, the European Union (EU) aims to tackle climate change and reach climate neutrality; therefore, forest regulations are designed to promote sustainable forest management practices and ensure the long-term health and productivity of forests. It is important to balance regulatory requirements with the economic, social, and environmental needs of forest stakeholders. This study analyses four theoretical scenarios (business as usual, green deal, intensive forestry, and intensive forestry with afforestation) and prognoses the management impact on standing volume and carbon stock in living trees and harvested wood products (HWPs). Thus, the aim of this study is to evaluate different theoretical forest management scenarios to predict changes in standing volume and carbon stock in living tree biomass and HWPs for the 100 next years. The results suggest that intensive targeted forestry practices may enhance carbon sequestration and were found to be the most suitable strategy for Latvia’s hemiboreal zone, as they balance economic benefits with carbon sequestration and ecosystem services. The obtained results can be valuable for policymakers and forest managers to promote sustainability and balance the diverse needs of society and forest stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Daiga Zute & Valters Samariks & Guntars Šņepsts & Jānis Donis & Āris Jansons, 2023. "Balancing Forest Regulations and Stakeholder Needs in Latvia: Modeling the Long-Term Impacts of Forest Management Strategies on Standing Volume and Carbon Storage," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2023:i:1:p:280-:d:1309215
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/1/280/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/1/280/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Per Gundersen & Emil E. Thybring & Thomas Nord-Larsen & Lars Vesterdal & Knute J. Nadelhoffer & Vivian K. Johannsen, 2021. "Old-growth forest carbon sinks overestimated," Nature, Nature, vol. 591(7851), pages 21-23, March.
    2. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Pülzl, Helga & Secco, Laura & Sergent, Arnaud & Wallin, Ida, 2018. "Orchestration in political processes: Involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 4-15.
    3. Bryngemark, Elina, 2019. "Second generation biofuels and the competition for forest raw materials: A partial equilibrium analysis of Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    4. Geng, Aixin & Yang, Hongqiang & Chen, Jiaxin & Hong, Yinxing, 2017. "Review of carbon storage function of harvested wood products and the potential of wood substitution in greenhouse gas mitigation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(P1), pages 192-200.
    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. Arnould, Maxence & Morel, Laure & Fournier, Meriem, 2022. "Embedding non-industrial private forest owners in forest policy and bioeconomy issues using a Living Lab concept," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    2. Thanne Mafaziya Nijamdeen & Jean Huge & Hajaniaina Ratsimbazafy & Kodikara Arachchilage Sunanda Kodikara & Farid Dahdouh-Guebas, 2022. "A social network analysis of mangrove management stakeholders in Sri Lanka's Northern Province," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/349602, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    3. Mathieu, Valentin & Roda, Jean-Marc, 2023. "A meta-analysis on wood trade flow modeling concepts," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    4. Leanda C. Garvie & David J. Lee & Biljana Kulišić, 2024. "Towards a Bioeconomy: Supplying Forest Residues for the Australian Market," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Kim, Do-hun & Sjølie, Hanne K. & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2024. "Psychological distances to climate change and public preferences for biodiversity-augmenting attributes in family-owned production forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    6. Emily Hope & Bruno Gagnon & Vanja Avdić, 2020. "Assessment of the Impact of Climate Change Policies on the Market for Forest Industrial Residues," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, February.
    7. Elias Hurmekoski & Juulia Suuronen & Lassi Ahlvik & Janni Kunttu & Tanja Myllyviita, 2022. "Substitution impacts of wood‐based textile fibers: Influence of market assumptions," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(4), pages 1564-1577, August.
    8. Federico E. Alice‐Guier & Frits Mohren & Pieter A. Zuidema, 2020. "The life cycle carbon balance of selective logging in tropical forests of Costa Rica," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 24(3), pages 534-547, June.
    9. Janusz Szmyt & Monika Dering, 2024. "Adaptive Silviculture and Climate Change—A Forced Marriage of the 21st Century?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-31, March.
    10. Aneta Kulanovic & Johan Nordensvärd, 2021. "Exploring the Political Discursive Lock-Ins on Sustainable Aviation in Sweden," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-16, November.
    11. Isabel Malico & Ana Cristina Gonçalves, 2021. "Eucalyptus globulus Coppices in Portugal: Influence of Site and Percentage of Residues Collected for Energy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-14, May.
    12. Jim Hart & Francesco Pomponi, 2020. "More Timber in Construction: Unanswered Questions and Future Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, April.
    13. Rui Sun & Dayi He & Jingjing Yan & Li Tao, 2021. "Mechanism Analysis of Applying Blockchain Technology to Forestry Carbon Sink Projects Based on the Differential Game Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, October.
    14. Marek Potkány & Miloš Gejdoš & Marek Debnár, 2018. "Sustainable Innovation Approach for Wood Quality Evaluation in Green Business," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-14, August.
    15. Charles Breton & Pierre Blanchet & Ben Amor & Robert Beauregard & Wen-Shao Chang, 2018. "Assessing the Climate Change Impacts of Biogenic Carbon in Buildings: A Critical Review of Two Main Dynamic Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-30, June.
    16. Rasmus Karlsson, 2021. "Learning in the Anthropocene," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-11, June.
    17. Tom Karras & André Brosowski & Daniela Thrän, 2022. "A Review on Supply Costs and Prices of Residual Biomass in Techno-Economic Models for Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-25, June.
    18. Gilbert Ahamer, 2022. "Why Biomass Fuels Are Principally Not Carbon Neutral," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-39, December.
    19. Furszyfer Del Rio, Dylan D. & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Griffiths, Steve & Bazilian, Morgan & Kim, Jinsoo & Foley, Aoife M. & Rooney, David, 2022. "Decarbonizing the pulp and paper industry: A critical and systematic review of sociotechnical developments and policy options," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    20. Coughlan de Perez, Erin & Stephens, Elisabeth & van Aalst, Maarten & Bazo, Juan & Fournier-Tombs, Eleonore & Funk, Sebastian & Hess, Jeremy J. & Ranger, Nicola & Lowe, Rachel, 2022. "Epidemiological versus meteorological forecasts: Best practice for linking models to policymaking," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 521-526.

    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:jsusta:v:16:y:2023:i:1:p:280-:d:1309215. 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.