Opportunity Costs of In Situ Carbon Storage Derived by Multiple-Objective Stand-Level Optimization—Results from Case Studies in Portugal and Germany

Mengistie Kindu (), Logan Robert Bingham, José G. Borges, Susete Marques, Olha Nahorna, Jeannette Eggers and Thomas Knoke
Additional contact information
Mengistie Kindu: Institute of Forest Management, TUM School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, D-85354 Freising, Germany
Logan Robert Bingham: Institute of Forest Management, TUM School of Life Sciences Weihenstephan, Technical University of Munich, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, D-85354 Freising, Germany
José G. Borges: Forest Research Centre and Laboratory TERRA, School of Agriculture, University of Lisbon, 1649-004 Lisbon, Portugal
Susete Marques: Forest Research Centre and Laboratory TERRA, School of Agriculture, University of Lisbon, 1649-004 Lisbon, Portugal
Olha Nahorna: Forest Research Centre and Laboratory TERRA, School of Agriculture, University of Lisbon, 1649-004 Lisbon, Portugal
Jeannette Eggers: Department of Forest Resource Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 901 83 Umeå, Sweden

Land, 2022, vol. 11, issue 11, 1-12

Abstract: Considering in situ carbon storage in forest management has gained momentum under increasing pressure to decarbonize our economies. Here, we present results from case studies in Portugal and Germany showing the opportunity costs of in situ carbon storage derived by multiple-objective optimization. We used a stand-level model to optimize land expectation value under uncertainty as a reference, then derived opportunity costs by including the enhancement of the average carbon storage in aboveground biomass as a second objective. Using the optimal (compromise) solution when considering both objectives simultaneously, we show opportunity costs of EUR 119 (Portugal) and EUR 68 (Germany) per Mg CO 2eq . These opportunity costs are higher than conservative, but lower than alternative cost estimates for future damages caused by current CO 2 emissions. An important result was that suggested reference solutions in both countries (though only for low discount rates in Portugal) were mixed forests without clearfelling. In Germany, this implicitly elevated carbon storage. Such “closer-to-nature-forest-management” systems were also mostly suggested by the optimization tool when carbon storage was an objective.

Keywords: climate change; in situ carbon storage; optimization; social costs (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q15 Q2 Q24 Q28 Q5 R14 R52 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/11/2085/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/11/2085/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:11:p:2085-:d:977477

Access Statistics for this article

Land is currently edited by Ms. Carol Ma

More articles in Land from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().