Search

Climate change is expected to alter both forest stand- and landscape-level dynamics through a change in environmental characteristics. While numerous studies have employed models to assess the ecological and/or economic impacts of such changes on forests throughout the world, there is need to further refine such analyses. In this paper, we contribute to this literature by coupling an ecological (PICUS–LANDIS II) modeling framework with an economic (computable general equilibrium) model to better account for the economic impact associated with climate-induced impacts on forest stand- and landscape-level structure and composition dynamics. Applying this framework to a case-study region of New Brunswick, Canada, we estimate that climate change will reduce softwood supply by 16%–73% and impact hardwood supply in the range of −2% to +4% by 2150. The change in wood supply is estimated to reduce the value of the softwood and hardwood forestry and logging sector output by up to 51% and 17%, respectively, by 2150. These sector-level impacts may lead to a 0.08%–0.88% reduction in annual gross domestic product by 2150. The methodological advances established in this study can be used to better inform future forest management and economic plans that aim to lessen both the ecological and economic impact of climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study evaluated the long-run economic impacts of four alternative forest management strategies on New Brunswick’s Crown land forests: two volume-based strategies focused on business as usual (BAU) and intensive (INT) timber volume production and two value-based strategies focused on forest manufacturing sector contribution to gross domestic product (GDP) and government surplus (GOV). These were defined within an extended wood supply model that incorporated both economic indicators (logging sector profit, government surplus, forest manufacturing sector shipments, and forest manufacturing sector GDP) and timber supply indicators (harvest levels, operable growing stock, and products). Results showed that a number of indicator trade-offs emerge under each strategy. For instance, the GOV strategy produced the highest present value government surplus value (at $1.2 billion, exceeding INT, BAU, and GDP strategies by $352 million, $302 million, and $169 million, respectively) and logging sector profit (at $2.4 billion, exceeding BAU, INT, and GDP strategies by $4 million, $11 million, and $8 million, respectively) over an 80 year planning horizon. However, this strategy also produced the lowest forest manufacturing sector contribution to GDP (at $12.8 billion, below the GDP, INT, and BAU strategies by $4.3 billion, $1.6 billion, and $1.4 billion, respectively) and the lowest annual softwood volume harvest, operable growing stock, and silvicultural investment of all strategies. Thus, although these findings emphasize that value-based strategies can produce some favourable economic outcomes, a number of trade-offs emerge that need to be further investigated before such strategies can be supported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]