Comparing multipurpose forest management with timber management, incorporating timber, carbon and oxygen values: A case study

Abstract This paper comparatively examines two forest management planning approaches: multipurpose forest management and traditional timber management, with carbon, timber and oxygen production objectives in mind. The effects of both approaches on carbon and oxygen values were estimated with an oxygen and carbon flow matrix, while timber production was modelled through a growth and yield model. The estimated values were simultaneously integrated into a linear programming model developed for this study. The objective was to maximize the net present value (NPV) of the profits of timber, oxygen and carbon under the constraints of an even flow of timber production and ending forest inventory for each planning approach. The results showed that the ecological and environmental regulations in multipurpose management substantially decreased the NPV of timber production even though they increased the NPV of carbon and oxygen flow. The results also indicated that over a 100 year planning horizon the total NPV of all forest ecosystem values including carbon, timber and oxygen is almost the same (only 1.9% reduction in multipurpose management approach) in both management approaches. Although multipurpose management creates more NPV of carbon and oxygen than timber management does, the latter provides better results in terms of timber production. It is therefore important to take into account the NPV of all apparent and quantifiable forest values in preparing forest management plans, particularly in developing new management planning approaches.

[1]  Emin Zeki Başkent,et al.  Spatial wood supply simulation modelling , 1991 .

[2]  N. H. Ravindranath,et al.  Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry: A Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2000 .

[3]  Omar Masera,et al.  Modeling carbon sequestration in afforestation, agroforestry and forest management projects: the CO2FIX V.2 approach , 2003 .

[4]  H. Taha.  Modeling impacts of increased urban vegetation on ozone air quality in the South Coast Air Basin , 1996 .

[5]  M. Nieuwenhuis,et al.  The impact of the introduction of sustainable forest management objectives on the optimisation of PC-based forest-level harvest schedules , 2005 .

[6]  P. Sands.  The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , 1992 .

[7]  I. Bateman,et al.  Estimating and valuing the carbon sequestered in softwood and hardwood trees, timber products and forest soils in Wales , 2000 .

[8]  Ilan Vertinsky,et al.  Managing forest and marginal agricultural land for multiple tradeoffs: compromising on economic, carbon and structural diversity objectives , 2005 .

[9]  M. Cannell.  Growing trees to sequester carbon in the UK: answers to some common questions , 1999 .

[10]  Ilan Vertinsky,et al.  Carbon sequestration and land management under uncertainty , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[11]  Finn Helles,et al.  A four-stage approach to evaluate management alternatives in multiple-use forestry , 1999 .

[12]  Carlos Romero,et al.  Forest management optimisation models when carbon captured is considered: a goal programming approach , 2003 .

[13]  G. A. Jordan,et al.  Designing forest landscape management. , 2000 .

[14]  T. Lämås,et al.  Modeling Carbon Sequestration and Timber Production in a Regional Case Study , 2006 .

[15]  Carlos Romero,et al.  Carbon captured as a new instrument in forest management: some implications , 2003 .

[16]  Gregg Marland,et al.  Carbon management and biodiversity. , 2003, Journal of Environmental Management.

[17]  Raisa Mäkipää,et al.  Potential contribution of the forest sector to carbon sequestration in Finland , 1997 .

[18]  J. C. Stevens,et al.  Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States , 2006 .

[19]  Wenchao Zhou,et al.  Economic effects of environmental concerns in forest management: an analysis of the cost of achieving environmental goals , 2004 .

[20]  Birger Solberg,et al.  Potential and Economic Efficiency of Carbon Sequestration in Forest Biomass Through Silvicultural Management , 1994 .

[21]  E. Z. Başkent,et al.  Modelling and analyzing timber production and carbon sequestration values of forest ecosystems: a case study , 2007 .

[22]  Carlos A. Cardelino,et al.  Natural hydrocarbons, urbanization, and urban ozone , 1990 .

[23]  P. Brang,et al.  Simulating effects of forest management on selected public forest goods and services: A case study , 2005 .

[24]  Robert E. Hoehn,et al.  Oxygen production by urban trees in the United States , 2007 .

[25]  B. Seely,et al.  Carbon sequestration in a boreal forest ecosystem: results from the ecosystem simulation model, FORECAST , 2002 .

[26]  Xiangming Xiao,et al.  Ecosystem functions, services and their values – a case study in Xingshan County of China , 2001 .

[27]  T. Lämås,et al.  A model for regional analysis of carbon sequestration and timber production , 2005 .

[28]  D. Nowak,et al.  Carbon storage and sequestration by urban trees in the USA. , 2002, Environmental pollution.

[29]  Tron Eid,et al.  Timber production possibilities of the Norwegian forest area and measures for a sustainable forestry , 2002 .

[30]  G. Cornelis van Kooten,et al.  How costly are carbon offsets? A meta-analysis of carbon forest sinks , 2004 .

[31]  Sandra A. Brown.  Measuring carbon in forests: current status and future challenges. , 2002, Environmental pollution.

[32]  John Creedy,et al.  The Economic Value of a Forested Catchment with Timber, Water and Carbon Sequestration Benefits , 2001 .

[33]  T. Eid,et al.  Economic consequences of sustainable forest management regimes at non-industrial forest owner level in Norway , 2001 .

[34]  J. C. Stevens,et al.  Effects of Urban Tree Management and Species Selection on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide , 2002, Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

[35]  G. A. Jordan,et al.  Forest landscape management modeling using simulated annealing , 2002 .

[36]  Anssi Ahtikoski,et al.  Applying the MOTTI simulator to analyse the effects of alternative management schedules on timber and non-timber production , 2005 .

[37]  Jari Liski,et al.  Managing carbon sinks by changing rotation length in European forests , 2004 .

[38]  H. L. Scheurman,et al.  Techniques for Prescribing Optimal Timber Harvest and Investment Under Different Objectives—Discussion and Synthesis , 1977 .

[39]  Kim Pingoud,et al.  Which rotation length is favourable to carbon sequestration , 2001 .

[40]  Manfred J. Lexer,et al.  Assessing trade-offs between carbon sequestration and timber production within a framework of multi-purpose forestry in Austria , 2007 .