Extent and costs of forest-based climate change mitigation in Germany: accounting for substitution

References

• Sathre R, O’Connor J. Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product substitution. Environ. Sci. Policy 13, 104–114 (2010).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werner F, Taverna R, Hofer P, Thürig E, Kaufmann E. National and global greenhouse gas dynamics of different forest management and wood use scenarios: a model-based assessment. Environ. Science Policy 13, 72–85 (2010).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knauf M. A multi-tiered approach for assessing the forestry and wood products industries’ impact on the carbon balance. Carbon Balance Manage. 10, 4 (2015).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Knauf M, Köhl M, Mues V, Olschofsky K, Frühwald A. Modeling the CO2-effects of forest management and wood usage on a regional basis. Carbon Balance Manage. 10, 13 (2015).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Braun M, Fritz D, Weiss P, et al. A holistic assessment of greenhouse gas dynamics from forests to the effects of wood products use in Austria. Carbon Manage. 7, 271–283 (2016).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smyth C, Rampley G, Lemprière TC, Schwab O, Kurz WA. Estimating product and energy substitution benefits in national-scale mitigation analyses for Canada. Global Change Biology Bioenergy 9, 1071–1084 (2017).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schweinle J, Köthke M, Englert H, Dieter M. Simulation of forest-based carbon balances for Germany: a contribution to the ‘carbon debt’ debate. WIREs Energy Environ. 7, e260 (2018).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bösch M, Elsasser P, Rock J, Rüter S, Weimar H, Dieter M. Costs and carbon sequestration potential of alternative forest management measures in Germany. Forest Policy and Econ. 78, 88–97 (2017).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köhl M, Hildebrandt R, Olschofsky K, et al. Combating the effects of climatic change on forests by mitigation strategies. Carbon Balance Manage. 5, 8 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bösch M, Weimar H, Dieter M. Input-output evaluation of Germany’s national cluster of forest-based industries. Eur. J. Forest Res. 134, 899–910 (2015).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knauf M, Joosten R, Frühwald A. Assessing fossil fuel substitution through wood use based on long-term simulations. Carbon Manage. 7, 67–77 (2016).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV), (Ed.). Die zweite Bundeswaldinventur: BWI 2. Das Wichtigste in Kürze. Bonn, BMELV (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV), (Ed.). Das Waldentwicklungsmodell 2003 bis 2042: Modell und Ergebnisse. Zu den Bundeswaldinventur-Erhebungen 2001 bis 2002 und 1986 bis 1988. Bonn, BMELV (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Oehmichen K, Demant B, Dunger K, et al. Inventurstudie 2008 und Treibhausgasinventar Wald. Landbauforschung (vTI Agri. Forestry Res.) 343, 1–141 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Liski J, Pussinen A, Pingoud K, Mäkipää R, Karjalainen T. Which rotation length is favourable to carbon sequestration? Can. J. Forest Res. 31, 2004–2013 (2001).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schelhaas MJ, Cienciala E, Lindner M, Nabuurs GJ, Zianchi G. Selection and quantification of forestry measures targeted at the Kyoto protocol and the convention on biodiversity. Alterra-report 1508, Alterra, Wageningen (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser R, Bösch M, Moog M. On the optimization of legislative periods: similarities to the optimization of rotation periods. Forest Policy Econ. 27, 1–7 (2013).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krug J, Köhl M, Riedel T, Bormann K, Rüter S, Elsasser P. Options for accounting carbon sequestration in German forests. Carbon Balance Manage. 4, 5 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Federal Ministry for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV), (Ed.). Nationale Strategie zur biologischen Vielfalt. Berlin, BMU (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Rüter S. Projection of net emissions from harvested wood products in European countries: for the period 2013–2020. Work Report 2011/1 of the Institute of Wood Technology and Wood Biology. Hamburg: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (2011).
   Google Scholar
• IPCC. 2013 Revised Supplementary Methods and Good Practice Guidance Arising from the Kyoto Protocol. Switzerland, IPCC (2014).
   Google Scholar
• Rüter, S. Der Beitrag der stofflichen Nutzung von Holz zum Klimaschutz: Das Modell WoodCarbonMonitor (PhD diss.). Technische Universität München, Wissenschaftszentrum Weihenstephan für Ernährung, Landnutzung und Umwelt (2017).
   Google Scholar
• Rüter S, Werner F, Forsell N, Prins C, Vial E, Levet A. ClimWood2030, climate benefits of material substitution by forest biomass and harvested wood products: perspective 2030. Thünen Report 42. Hamburg: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (2016).
   Google Scholar
• Hafner A, Rüter S, Ebert S, et al. Treibhausgasbilanzierung von Holzgebäuden – Umsetzung neuer Anforderungen an Ökobilanzen und Ermittlung empirischer Substitutionsfaktoren (THG-Holzbau). Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Fakultät Bau- und Umweltingenieurwissenschaften, Ressourceneffizientes Bauen (2017).
   Google Scholar
• Bösch M, Jochem D, Weimar H, and Dieter M. Physical input-output accounting of the wood and paper flow in Germany. Resources Conserv. Recycl. 94, 99–109 (2015).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plantinga AJ. The cost of carbon sequestration in forests: a positive analysis. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 27, 269–277 (1997).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plantinga AJ, Mauldin T, Miller DJ. An econometric analysis of the costs of sequestering carbon in forests. Am. J. Agri. Econ. 81, 812–824 (1999).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stavins RN. The costs of carbon sequestration: a revealed-preference approach. Am. Econ. Rev. 89, 994–1009 (1999).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sathaye JA, Makundi WR, Andrasko K, et al. Carbon mitigation potential and costs of forestry options in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, the Philippines and Tanzania. Mitigat. Adapt. Strat. Global Change 6, 185–211 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Lundmark T, Bergh J, Hofer P, et al. Potential roles of Swedish forestry in the context of climate change mitigation. Forests 5, 557–578 (2014).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundmark T, Poudel BC, Stål G, Nordin A, Sonesson J. Carbon balance in production forestry in relation to rotation length. Can. J. Forest Res. 48, 672–678 (2018).
   Google Scholar
• Richards KR, Stokes C. A review of forest carbon sequestration cost studies: a dozen years of research. Climatic Change 63, 1–48 (2004).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weimar H. Holzbilanzen 2013 bis 2015 für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Thünen Working Paper 57. Hamburg: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut, 25 p (2016).
   Google Scholar
• Fick J, Gömann H, (Eds.). 2018. Wechselwirkungen zwischen Landnutzung und Klimawandel. Berlin, Springer (in press).
   Google Scholar
• Weller P, Elsasser P. Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany: evidence from a choice experiment. Forest Policy Econ. 93, 1–9 (2018).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar