Get documents about "petra_lasch
Document Sample
International Conference on Modeling Forest Production
Vienna, April 19-23, 2004
Analysis of Adaptive Forest Management
Practices under Climate Change
Petra Lasch1, Franz-W. Badeck1, C. Fürstenau1, Dietmar Jäger2,
Manfred Lexer2, Marcus Lindner3, Felicitas Suckow1
1Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
2University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences
(BOKU), Vienna
3European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland
Email: lasch@pik-potsdam.de
Introduction: Research Questions
Effects of a variety of management programs (STP)
on management objectives under climate change
Evaluation of STPs by different user groups
(stakeholder) under climate change
Trade-off between maximization of carbon
sequestration and maximization of timber
production/ income
C - sequestration potential of adaptive forest
management under climate change
Introduction: Work Scheme
Current Climate Climate Change Scenario
Management Treatments
Forest Dynamics Model 4C
Wood Product
Model
Stakeholder Preferences
Multiple Criteria Analysis
Material and Methods: Model 4C
4C - FORESt Ecosystems in a changing physiologically
Environment based
for simulation of
managed and non-
managed stands
simulates C-, N-
and water balance
sensitive to
environmental
conditions
(climate/weather,
CO2, N)
Material and Methods: 4C – Management Model
Stand age < threshold 1
Yes No
Dominant height < threshold 2 Stand age < rotation age
Yes No Yes No
Thinning Shelterwood
Tending regimes Clear-cut
management
Directional From below From above Selective
Natural
felling Planting
regeneration
Variety of thinning methods, thinning intensity, rotation length
Different harvesting methods with planting/ natural regeneration
grading module: classification of timber yield and standing volume into
timber grades
Material and Methods: Multiple Criteria
Analysis (BOKU)
Evaluation of alternative adaptive forest management
strategies with regard to multiple management objectives
Method
• Application of multiple attribute utility theory (MAUT)
• Additive utitlity model
Material and Methods: Objectives and Criteria
Overall utility (stand level)
Timber Ground water Carbon
Biodiversity
production recharge sequestration
NPV Dead wood Percolation C seq.
in forest, soil,
Mean timber dead wood,
increment products,
landfill
St. Volume
Material and Methods: Utility function
Objective Priority Criterion Priority
Forest Priv. forest NGO
manag. owner
Timber 0.61 0.67 0.25 NPV 0.43
production MAI 0.43
St. volume 0.14
Carbon sequ. 0.05 0.17 0.25 Total carbon 1
Biodiversity 0.12 0.11 0.25 Dead wood 1
Groundwater 0.12 0.04 0.25 Percolation 1
recharge
4
Utot = p1 * UTP + p2 * UCS + p3 * UBD + p4 * UGWR ;
pi 1
i 1
Material and Methods: Multiple Criteria
Analysis (BOKU)
Method
• Application of multiple attribute utility theory (MAUT)
• Parameterisation of utility functions by Saaty‘s
Eigenvalue method applied in the Analytical Hierachical
process (AHP)
• User defined preference functions (UMAI, UNPV, USV, UCS, UBD, UGWR)
Carbon sequestration Biodiversity Mean volume incr.
1 1 1
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2
0 0 0
-65 135 335 535 2 22 42 62 1.80 2.80 3.80
C sequestr. [tC/ha] deadwood [tC/ha] mean volume inc.I [tC/ha]
Material and Methods: Stand Treatment
Programs (STP)
Site Age of Rotation Thinning Thinning/
stands length intensity Harvesting
Chorin/ 17, 48, 100 heavy (0.6)
Scots pine 80,120,160 mod. (0.8) thinning from
Grillenburg/ 31, 68, 100 slight (1.0) below & clear
cut
Norway spruce
Simulation Experiments:
3 stand initialisations x
9 STPs + conservation strategy x
3 climate scenarios
90 simulation runs per site, 100 years simulation time
Material and Methods: Stand Treatment
Programs (STP)
Application of data from long-term management trials
Evaluation of STP depends on initial stand age
Averaging of three age classes is not adequate
Results are mainly presented for one of three stand initializations
Consideration of normal forest is necessary for
an evaluation of STP independently on initialization age
Material and Methods: Climate
Current climate: 100 years from 1961-1990 CRU
Greenhouse emission scenario: IS92a
ECH: ECHAM4 simulation 1990 –2090 (MPI, Hamburg)
HAD: HadCM2 simulation 1990 –2090 (Hadley Centre)
Site Mean annual Mean annual
temperature [°C] precipitation sum [mm]
CC ECH HAD CC ECH HAD
Chorin 8.5 11.3 10.6 519 519 546
Grillenburg 7.4 10.5 9.8 824 756 829
temperature increase: 2.1 – 3.1 K, precipitation change: -9 % - + 5 %
Results: Carbon Sequestration & Climate Change
CSall: Net carbon flow in the forest, wood product pool, landfill over
100 years, pole stand
Pine, pole stand CC Spruce, pole stand CC
ECH ECH
HAD 700 HAD
700
600 600
500 500
tC/ha
tC/ha
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
NM
NM
80
80
80
120
120
120
160
160
160
80
80
80
120
120
120
160
160
160
STP STP
Climate change: increase in net carbon flow for both climate scenarios
Maximum CSall: STP 10 (no management)
Results: Stand Level Utility (Spruce)
Pole stand, current climate
Utilities for 3 stakeholders Partial utilities for CS, TP, BD, GR
Spruce Spruce
0.8 1
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.5 0.6
0.4
0.3 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.1
0 0
80 0_h
80 m
80 h
_m
_
12 0_ s
0 h
_
12 _s
80
12 _
12 _m
8
12 _h
U UG
12 m
80
16 0_s
16 s
0
16 0_h
0_
U B W
0_
16 _h
NG
16 _m
16 m
UC TP D R
FM
s
0
s
0_
NM
0_
FO
0_
NM
O
0
Sa
l
STP 7 (160_h): max. stand utility FM & FO
STP 10 (no manag.): high value of UBD (dead wood) + high value
UCS high stand level utility (NGO)
Results: Stand Level Utility (Pine)
Pole stand, current climate
Utilities for 3 stakeholders Partial utilities for CS, TP, BD, GR
Pine Pine
0.8 1
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
80 0_h
12 0_ m
80 _h
12 0_ s
80 m
8 _
h
12 _s
UG
12 0_m
8
80
12 0_h
_
UTUBD W
12 _m
16 0_ s
16 0_s
0 h
16 0_
16 0_h
16 _m
UC P
16 _m
NG
0
NM s
R
s
FM
0_
NM
FO
0_
Sa
0
O
l
Max. Utility
forest owner & forest manag.: STP 9; NGO: STP 10
Results: Stand Level Utility & Climate Change
Forest owner, pole stand
Pine Spruce
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
80 0_h
80 _h
80 m
80 m
12 _s
0 h
12 _s
_
80
12 0_h
12 _m
_
12 0_
8
16 0_s
12 _m
0 h
16 0_s
FO _E
16 _m
16 0_h
16 0_
s
FO
FO _E
16 _m
M
FO
0
0_
FO
s
M
FO
_H CH
0_
N
_H CH
0
N
AD
AD
Max. Utility Max. Utility
CC: STP 9 ECH/HAD: STP 8 CC/ECH/HAD: STP 7 (160_h)
Results: Timber Production vs. Carbon
Sequestration vs. Income (Pine)
CC CS Pine, pole
NPVPine, pole CC
CC
TP Pine, pole
ECH ECH
ECH
HAD HAD
HAD
1 1
1
0.8 0.8
0.8
preference
preference
preference
0.6 0.6
0.6
0.4 0.4
0.4
0.2 0.2
0.2
0 0
0
_m
_m
12 m
16 m
12 ss
m
16 m
12 s
80 h
_h
NM
NM
s
s
16 s
s
h
12 h
16 _h
_m
_m
12 _h
16 _h
16 s
s
_m
NM
_h
_
_
0_
0_
0_
0_
_
0_
_
0_
0_
0_
0_
0_
0_
0_
0_
80
80
80
80
0
60
80
80
80
80
12
16
12
STP STP
STP
Max. TP Max. CS Max. NPV
CC: STP 9 (160/1.) CC & ECH & HAD: CC & ECH & HAD:
ECH: STP 8 (160/0.8) STP 10/NM STP 7 (160/0.6)
HAD: STP 8 (160/0.8)
Results: Timber Production vs. Carbon
Sequestration vs. Income (Spruce)
TP Spruce, pole CC CS Spruce, pole
NPVSpruce, pole CC
CC
ECH ECH
ECH
1 HAD 1 HAD
HAD
0.8 0.8
preference
preference
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
120_m
160_m
120_m
160_m
80_m
NM
80_m
NM
120_h
160_h
120_h
160_h
120_s
160_s
120_s
160_s
80_h
80_h
80_s
80_s
STP STP
Max. TP Max. CS Max. NPV
CC & ECH & HAD: CC & ECH & HAD: CC & ECH & HAD:
STP 7 (160/0.6) STP 10 /NM STP 4 (120/0.6)
Marginal Costs of Carbon Sequestration
Flow summation concept:
CSall – net carbon flow (forest, wood products, landfill)
over 100 years
NPV – net present value (interest rate 4%)
250 STP 10
STPBL
200
CSall [t C/ha]
CS
150 STPNPV
100
50 NPV NPV
MC
0 CS
0 200 400 600 800
NPV [€/ha]
Marginal Costs of Carbon Sequestration (Pine)
Max. carbon sequestration: STP 10 (NM)
Base line STP: STP 5 (120/0.8)
Marginal costs [€ / t C] NPV (STP10 ) NPV (STP 5)
MC
CSall (STP10 ) CSall (STP 5)
What is the potential loss in income if STP 10 is chosen ?
Pine, actual MC additional CSall under act. MC
250
70
tC/ha over 100
60 200
50
years
150
€/tC
40
30 100
20 50 mature
10 mature pole
pole 0
0 juvenile
juvenile CC
CC ECH ECH HAD
HAD
Marginal Costs of Carbon Sequestration (Pine)
Base line (STP5) STP with max. NPV Base line (STP 5)
max. Csall (STP 10) max. Csall (STP 10) STP with max. NPV
Pine, actual MC Pine, real op. MC
Pine, MC
70
70 60
70
60 50
60
40
50 50
€/tC
30
€/tC
€/tC
40 40 20
30 10
30
0
20 20 -10 mature
10 mature 10 mature -20
pole
pole pole -30
0 0 juvenile
juvenile juvenile CC
CC CC ECH
ECH ECH HAD
HAD HAD
additional CSall under real op. MC
additional CSall under act. MC additional CSall under act. MC
100
300 300
tC/ha over 100 years
tC/ha over 100 years
tC/ha over 100 years
250 250 50
200 200
0
150 150
100 100 -50
50 mature
50 mature mature
-100 pole
pole 0 pole
0 CC juvenile
juvenile juvenile ECH
CC CC ECH HAD
ECH HAD HAD
Conclusions/ Outlook
MCA demonstrates the conflicting objectives of forest
management under current climate and climate change
STPs maximizing carbon sequestration/ overall stand utility
are adapted to climate change
Economic evaluation: Marginal costs (MC) of carbon
sequestration decrease under assumed climate change
Stakeholders:
improvements of the timber grading, objectives, criteria,
priorities, and preference functions
New evaluation: MCA with normal forest simulations
Thank you
