4.7 Article

Storing More Carbon by Improving Forest Management in the Acadian Forest of New England, USA

Journal

FORESTS
Volume 13, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f13122031

Keywords

carbon storage; forest management; mitigating climate change; natural climate solutions; improved forest management

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study demonstrates that improved forest management can increase carbon storage in the Acadian Forest of New England, and presents a financial model for funding this management approach through carbon markets, philanthropy, timber revenues, and private investments.
The capacity of forests to store carbon, combined with time-tested approaches to managing forests, make forests a useful tool for atmospheric carbon mitigation. The primary goals of this study are to determine the amount of unrealized mitigation available from Improved Forest Management (IFM) in the Acadian Forest of New England in the northeastern U.S., and to demonstrate how this mitigation can feasibly be attained. This study used the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) to model the impacts of IFM practices articulated by the New England Forestry Foundation on carbon storage in the Acadian Forest. Our results, together with empirical data from well-managed forests, show that if the modeled improved management is employed on privately owned timberland across the Acadian Forest of New England, carbon storage could be increased by 488 Tg CO(2)e. Our financial modeling shows that IFM could be funded in this region by combining income from carbon markets with the philanthropic funding of conservation easements, timber revenues, and capital investments from private investors who prioritize social and economic goals alongside financial returns. This study adds to the body of evidence from around the world that the potential for managed forests to contribute to climate change mitigation has not been fully realized.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available