P. Lauri, N. Forsell, M. Gusti, A. Korosuo, P. Havlík, M. Obersteiner
{"title":"Global Woody Biomass Harvest\nVolumes and Forest Area Use Under\nDifferent SSP-RCP Scenarios","authors":"P. Lauri, N. Forsell, M. Gusti, A. Korosuo, P. Havlík, M. Obersteiner","doi":"10.1561/112.00000504","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this study, we investigate the effects of climate change mitigation and socioeconomic development on global forest resources use. The analysis is based on the Global Biosphere Management Model (GLOBIOM), which is a recursive dynamic land-use model. Climate change mitigation and socioeconomic development are included in the model as exogenous parameters taken from the SSP-RCP scenarios, which separate between the shared socioeconomic pathways(“SSPs”) and the representative concentration pathways (“RCPs”). The effect of SSP-RCP scenarios is restricted to factors that are quantitatively documented in the SSP database (economic growth, population growth, bioenergy demand, and carbon prices). Our results indicate that both climate change mitigation and socio-economic development may increase harvest volumes and harvested area considerably in the future. This happens because there are no opportunity costs of using forest area for harvesting in the model. We show that such opportunity costs can be added in the model by considering carbon storage changes between forest types and carbon payments on them. These payments increases woody biomass prices and make woody biomass harvesting for modern bioenergy less profitable mitigation option relative to carbon sequestration in the standing forests. However, the payments do not have much impact on the profitability of woody biomass harvesting for material products and traditional bioenergy. The reason is that energy crops provide a substitute for woody biomass use for modern bioenergy while there are less substitutes available for woody biomass use for material products and traditional bioenergy. Provided that carbon payments can be used as a policy instrument to control impacts of climate change mitigation on harvest volumes and harvested area, an unfavorable future socioeconomic development may cause a greater threat to the world’s forests than climate change mitigation.","PeriodicalId":54831,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Forest Economics","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Forest Economics","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1561/112.00000504","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24
Abstract
In this study, we investigate the effects of climate change mitigation and socioeconomic development on global forest resources use. The analysis is based on the Global Biosphere Management Model (GLOBIOM), which is a recursive dynamic land-use model. Climate change mitigation and socioeconomic development are included in the model as exogenous parameters taken from the SSP-RCP scenarios, which separate between the shared socioeconomic pathways(“SSPs”) and the representative concentration pathways (“RCPs”). The effect of SSP-RCP scenarios is restricted to factors that are quantitatively documented in the SSP database (economic growth, population growth, bioenergy demand, and carbon prices). Our results indicate that both climate change mitigation and socio-economic development may increase harvest volumes and harvested area considerably in the future. This happens because there are no opportunity costs of using forest area for harvesting in the model. We show that such opportunity costs can be added in the model by considering carbon storage changes between forest types and carbon payments on them. These payments increases woody biomass prices and make woody biomass harvesting for modern bioenergy less profitable mitigation option relative to carbon sequestration in the standing forests. However, the payments do not have much impact on the profitability of woody biomass harvesting for material products and traditional bioenergy. The reason is that energy crops provide a substitute for woody biomass use for modern bioenergy while there are less substitutes available for woody biomass use for material products and traditional bioenergy. Provided that carbon payments can be used as a policy instrument to control impacts of climate change mitigation on harvest volumes and harvested area, an unfavorable future socioeconomic development may cause a greater threat to the world’s forests than climate change mitigation.
期刊介绍:
The journal covers all aspects of forest economics, and publishes scientific papers in subject areas such as the following:
forest management problems: economics of silviculture, forest regulation and operational activities, managerial economics;
forest industry analysis: economics of processing, industrial organization problems, demand and supply analysis, technological change, international trade of forest products;
multiple use of forests: valuation of non-market priced goods and services, cost-benefit analysis of environment and timber production, external effects of forestry and forest industry;
forest policy analysis: market and intervention failures, regulation of forest management, ownership, taxation;
land use and economic development: deforestation and land use problem, national resource accounting, contribution to national and regional income and employment.
forestry and climate change: using forestry to mitigate climate change, economic analysis of bioenergy, adaption of forestry to climate change.