IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v232y2015i1p115-13310.1007-s10479-013-1519-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A compromise programming model for developing the cost of including carbon pools and flux into forest management

Author

Listed:
  • L. Gharis
  • J. Roise
  • J. McCarter

Abstract

Policy makers need research based decision analysis models that include carbon sequestration and forest products in order to make policies that are both economically viable and effective. Forests and wood products have been identified as important mechanisms for carbon sequestration and storage. Policies often cover carbon sequestration but not product storage and substitution. Furthermore, many researchers have developed and published models on carbon management. However, a gap exists in operational level models that include product substitution. We developed a model to investigate optimal stand level management with competing objectives of maximizing soil expectation value, carbon storage in the forest, and carbon dioxide emission savings from product storage and substitution. Our purpose was to produce an accurate and usable analytical product for Southeastern U.S. foresters growing loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) in the presence of carbon policies. The decision variables were traditional stand level management variables: planting density, thinning timing and density, and rotation length. Over time these variables influence the proportion of wood going into pulp, chip-n-saw, and sawtimber where each of these classes has an expected use (carbon storage) life. Compromise programming was employed to solve the multiple-objective problem and to demonstrate the tradeoffs between the competing objectives. This type of model demonstrates a practical method for comparing tradeoffs associated with adjusting forest management for a carbon market. The difference in costs among objectives is important for decision makers considering climate change policies, as it represents the minimum value a rational landowner would accept to sequester a unit of carbon. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Suggested Citation

  • L. Gharis & J. Roise & J. McCarter, 2015. "A compromise programming model for developing the cost of including carbon pools and flux into forest management," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 232(1), pages 115-133, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:232:y:2015:i:1:p:115-133:10.1007/s10479-013-1519-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-013-1519-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10479-013-1519-9
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-013-1519-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Fylstra & Leon Lasdon & John Watson & Allan Waren, 1998. "Design and Use of the Microsoft Excel Solver," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 29-55, October.
    2. Christopher Galik & Megan Mobley & Daniel Richter, 2009. "A virtual “field test” of forest management carbon offset protocols: the influence of accounting," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 14(7), pages 677-690, October.
    3. Brent Sohngen & Sandra Brown, 2008. "Extending timber rotations: carbon and cost implications," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(5), pages 435-451, September.
    4. Fan-Rui Meng & Charles Bourque & Steven Oldford & D. Swift & Helen Smith, 2003. "Combining carbon sequestration objectives with timber management planning," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 371-403, December.
    5. G. Cornelis van Kooten & Clark S. Binkley & Gregg Delcourt, 1995. "Effect of Carbon Taxes and Subsidies on Optimal Forest Rotation Age and Supply of Carbon Services," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(2), pages 365-374.
    6. Pohjola, J. & Valsta, L., 2007. "Carbon credits and management of Scots pine and Norway spruce stands in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(7), pages 789-798, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vassiliki Kazana & Angelos Kazaklis & Dimitrios Raptis & Christos Stamatiou, 2020. "A combined multi-criteria approach to assess forest management sustainability: an application to the forests of Eastern Macedonia & Thrace Region in Greece," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 321-343, November.

    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. Couture, Stéphane & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Forest management under fire risk when forest carbon sequestration has value," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2002-2011, September.
    2. Lintunen, Jussi & Uusivuori, Jussi, 2014. "On The Economics of Forest Carbon: Renewable and Carbon Neutral But Not Emission Free," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 165755, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    3. Juutinen, Artti & Ahtikoski, Anssi & Lehtonen, Mika & Mäkipää, Raisa & Ollikainen, Markku, 2018. "The impact of a short-term carbon payment scheme on forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 115-127.
    4. Pohjola, Johanna & Laturi, Jani & Lintunen, Jussi & Uusivuori, Jussi, 2018. "Immediate and long-run impacts of a forest carbon policy—A market-level assessment with heterogeneous forest owners," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 94-105.
    5. 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.
    6. Tommi Ekholm, 2019. "Optimal forest rotation under carbon pricing and forest damage risk," Papers 1912.00269, arXiv.org.
    7. Goetz, Renan Ulrich & Hritonenko, Natali & Mur, Ruben & Xabadia, Àngels & Yatsenko, Yuri, 2013. "Forest management for timber and carbon sequestration in the presence of climate change: The case of Pinus Sylvestris," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 86-96.
    8. Ekholm, Tommi, 2016. "Optimal forest rotation age under efficient climate change mitigation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 62-68.
    9. 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.
    10. Parkatti, Vesa-Pekka & Suominen, Antti & Tahvonen, Olli & Malo, Pekka, 2024. "Assessing economic benefits and costs of carbon sinks in boreal rotation forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    11. Dwivedi, Puneet & Khanna, Madhu & Sharma, Ajay & Susaeta, Andres, 2016. "Efficacy of carbon and bioenergy markets in mitigating carbon emissions on reforested lands: A case study from Southern United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 1-9.
    12. Susaeta, Andres & Chang, Sun Joseph & Carter, Douglas R. & Lal, Pankaj, 2014. "Economics of carbon sequestration under fluctuating economic environment, forest management and technological changes: An application to forest stands in the southern United States," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 47-64.
    13. Matthies, Brent D. & Valsta, Lauri T., 2016. "Optimal forest species mixture with carbon storage and albedo effect for climate change mitigation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 95-105.
    14. Ekholm, Tommi, 2020. "Optimal forest rotation under carbon pricing and forest damage risk," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    15. 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.
    16. O’Donoghue, Cathal & O’Fatharta, Eoin & Geoghegan, Cathal & Ryan, Mary, 2024. "Farmland afforestation: Forest optimal rotation ages across discrete optimisation objectives," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    17. Monge, Juan J. & Bryant, Henry L. & Gan, Jianbang & Richardson, James W., 2016. "Land use and general equilibrium implications of a forest-based carbon sequestration policy in the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 102-120.
    18. Rong Li & Brent Sohngen & Xiaohui Tian, 2022. "Efficiency of forest carbon policies at intensive and extensive margins," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(4), pages 1243-1267, August.
    19. Gregmar Galinato & Shinsuke Uchida, 2010. "Evaluating Temporary Certified Emission Reductions in Reforestation and Afforestation Programs," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(1), pages 111-133, May.
    20. Kooten, G. Cornelis Van, 2022. "The Impact of Carbon on Optimal Forest Rotation Ages: An Application to Coastal Forests in British Columbia," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322612, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:spr:annopr:v:232:y:2015:i:1:p:115-133:10.1007/s10479-013-1519-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.