Valuation and production possibilities on a working forest using multi-objective programming, Woodstock, timber NPV, and carbon storage and sequestration

References

• Amateis RL, Burkhart HE, Allen HL, Montes C. 2001. FASTLOB: a stand-level growth and yield model for fertilized and thinned loblolly pine plantations. Loblolly Pine Growth and Yield Research Cooperative Report, 115, 26.
   Google Scholar
• Amateis RL, Liu J, Ducey MJ, Allen HL. 2000. Modeling response to midrotation nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization in loblolly pine plantations. South J Appl For. 24(4):207–212.
   Google Scholar
• Backéus S, Wikström P, Lämås T. 2005. A model for regional analysis of carbon sequestration and timber production. For Ecol Manage. 216(1):28–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baskent EZ, Keleş S. 2009. Developing alternative forest management planning strategies incorporating timber, water and carbon values: an examination of their interactions. Environ Model Assess. 14(4):467–480.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birdsey R, Pregitzer K, Lucier A. 2006. Forest carbon management in the United States. J Environ Qual. 35(4):1461–1469.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown S, Sathaye J, Cannell M, Kauppi PE. 1996. Management of forests for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burley J, Ebeling J, Costa PM, Freer-Smith PH, Broadmeadow MSJ, Lynch JM. 2007. 5 Carbon Sequestration as a forestry opportunity in a changing climate. For Clim Change. 31–37.
   Google Scholar
• Canadell JG, Pataki DE, Gifford R, Houghton RA, Luo Y, Raupach MR, Smith P, Steffen W. 2007. Saturation of the terrestrial carbon sink. In Terrestrial ecosystems in a changing world. New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; p. 59–78.
   Google Scholar
• CARB. 2015. Compliance offset protocol, California Air Resources Board. Adopted June 25, 2015. Downloaded December 7, 2015. Available from: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/protocols/usforest/forestprotocol2015.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Chomitz KM. 1999. Evaluating carbon offsets from forestry and energy projects: how do they compare? World Bank, Vol. 2357:34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-2357.
   Google Scholar
• Díaz-Balteiro L, Romero C. 2003. Forest management optimisation models when carbon captured is considered: a goal programming approach. For Ecol Manage. 174(1):447–457.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon GE. 2002. Essential FVS: a user’s guide to the forest vegetation simulator. Fort Collins (CO): USDA-Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center.
   Google Scholar
• Dixon R, Brown S, Houghton REA, Solomon AM, Trexier MC, Wisniewski J. 1994. Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystems. Science (Washington). 263(5144):185–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galik CS, Jackson RB. 2009. Risks to forest carbon offset projects in a changing climate. For Ecol Manage. 257(11):2209–2216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gharis L, Roise J, McCarter J. 2015. A compromise programming model for developing the cost of including carbon pools and flux into forest management. Ann Oper Res. 232(1):115–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbs HK, Brown S, Niles JO, Foley JA. 2007. Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality. Environ Res Letters. 2(4):045023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griscom B, Shoch D, Stanley B, Cortez R, Virgilio N. 2009. Sensitivity of amounts and distribution of tropical forest carbon credits depending on baseline rules. Environ Sci Policy. 12(7):897–911.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heath LS, Smith JE. 2004. Criterion 5, indicator 26: total forest ecosystem biomass and carbon pool, and if appropriate, by forest type, age class and successional change.
   Google Scholar
• Hoen HF, Solberg B. 1994. Potential and economic efficiency of carbon sequestration in forest biomass through silvicultural management. For Sci. 40(3):429–451.
   Google Scholar
• Hoen HF, Solberg B. 1999. Policy options in carbon sequestration via sustainable forest management: an example from the North. In: Palo M, editor. Forest transition and carbon fluxes – global scenarios and policies. World Development Studies, 15. Helsinki: UNU World Institute for Development Economics Research; p. 117–132.
   Google Scholar
• IGBP Terrestrial Carbon Working Group. 1998. Climate: the terrestrial carbon cycle: implications for the Kyoto Protocol. Science. 280(5368):1393–1394.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jandl R, Lindner M, Vesterdal L, Bauwens B, Baritz R, Hagedorn F, Johnson DW, Minkkinen K, Byrne KA. 2007. How strongly can forest management influence soil carbon sequestration? Geoderma. 137(3):253–268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson DW, Curtis PS. 2001. Effects of forest management on soil C and N storage: meta analysis. For Ecol Manage. 140(2):227–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khanal PN, Grebner DL, Munn IA, Grado SC, Grala RK, Henderson JE, Measells MK. 2016. Nonindustrial private forest landowner beliefs toward climate change and carbon sequestration in the southern United States. J For. 114:1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Körner C. 2003. Atmospheric science: slow in, rapid out – carbon flux studies and Kyoto targets. Science. 300(5623):1242–1243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Kooten GC, Grainger A, Ley E, Marland G, Solberg B. 1997. Conceptual issues related to carbon sequestration: uncertainty and time. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. 27(S1):65–82.
   Google Scholar
• van Kooten GC, Krcmar-Nozic E, Stennes B, van Gorkom R. 1999. Economics of fossil fuel substitution and wood product sinks when trees are planted to sequester carbon on agricultural lands in western Canada. Can J For Res. 29(11):1669–1678.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee HC, McCarl BA, Gillig D. 2005. The dynamic competitiveness of U.S. agricultural and forest carbon sequestration. Can J Agr Econ/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie. 53(4):343–357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leiserowitz A, Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Feinberg G, Howe P. 2013. Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in April 2013. Available at SSRN 2298705.
   Google Scholar
• Luo Y, White LW, Canadell JG, DeLucia EH, Ellsworth DS, Finzi A, Lichter J, Schlesinger WH. 2003. Sustainability of terrestrial carbon sequestration: a case study in Duke Forest with inversion approach. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 17(1):21.1–21.13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marland G, Fruit K, Sedjo R. 2001. Accounting for sequestered carbon: the question of permanence. Environ Sci Policy. 4(6):259–268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabuurs GJ, Lindner M, Verkerk PJ, Gunia K, Deda P, Michalak R, Grassi G. 2013. First signs of carbon sink saturation in European forest biomass. Nat Clim Chang. 3(9):792–796.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nave LE, Vance ED, Swanston CW, Curtis PS. 2010. Harvest impacts on soil carbon storage in temperate forests. For Ecol Manage. 259(5):857–866.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ndjondo M, Gourlet-Fleury S, Manlay RJ, Obiang NLE, Ngomanda A, Romero C, Claeys F, Picard N. 2014. Opportunity costs of carbon sequestration in a forest concession in central Africa. Carbon Balance and Management. 9(1):1–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Newell RG, Stavins RN. 2000. Climate change and forest sinks: factors affecting the costs of carbon sequestration. J Environ Econ Manage. 40(3):211–235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noormets A, Epron D, Domec JC, McNulty SG, Fox T, Sun G, King JS. 2015. Effects of forest management on productivity and carbon sequestration: a review and hypothesis. For Ecol Manage. 355:124–140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng Y, Thomas SC, Tian D. 2008. Forest management and soil respiration: implications for carbon sequestration. Environ Rev. 16(NA):93–111.
   Google Scholar
• Penman J, Gytarsky M, Hiraishi T, Krug T, Kruger D, Pipatti R, Buendia, l, Miwa, K, Ngara, T, Tamabe K, Wagner F, editors. 2003. Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and foresty. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). http://www.ipcc.ch. Retrieved from: http://proxying.lib.ncsu.edu/index.php?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/18034700?accountid=12725
   Google Scholar
• Pretty J, Ball A. 2001. Agricultural influences on carbon emissions and sequestration: a review of evidence and the emerging trading options. Centre for Environment and Society Occasional Paper. 3:31.
   Google Scholar
• Prodanovic P, Simonovic SP. 2003. Fuzzy compromise programming for group decision making. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum. 33(3):358–365.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solberg B. 1997. Forest biomass as carbon sink-economic value and forest management/policy implications. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. 27(S1):323–333.
   Google Scholar