Costs and benefits of implementing continuous cover forestry in boreal peatlands

Climate change and forestry activities heighten the risk of nutrient export from boreal peatland forests into watercourses, threatening water quality. Recognizing a nutrient-reducing practice is insufficient; evaluating costs and benefits is crucial to choose the best options. This study addresses this gap by applying a cost-benefit analysis to continuous cover forestry (CCF) as a strategy to mitigate phosphorus (P) export. The NutSpaFHy model estimated P exports under different management scenarios, comparing rotation forestry (RF) with CCF. Key variables measured included P reduction, net present value, revenue losses, and consumer surplus from recreation. Results showed CCF reduced P exports to 0.022 kg/ha/year, roughly one-third of RF levels on sites suitable for CCF. Recreational benefits, quantified at 6.55€/person/year/kg, were assessed using travel cost and contingent behavior valuation methods. Revenue impacts were evaluated using a size-structured forest optimization model, with CCF costs determined by revenue differentials between optimal management and immediate CCF conversion. High discount rates and mesic sites favor CCF as the optimal solution, indicating no additional costs from an immediate switch on mature stands. Analysis across discount rates (1%, 3%, and 5%) suggests CCF is a viable water protection option, meeting cost-benefit criteria with a benefit-cost ratio of 4.05.

Publication Details

Journal
Figshare
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28239489.v1
Primary Topic
Peatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Costs and benefits of implementing continuous cover forestry in boreal peatlands

Figshare
Peatlands and Wetlands Ecology
article

Costs and benefits of implementing continuous cover forestry in boreal peatlands

article en

Abstract

Climate change and forestry activities heighten the risk of nutrient export from boreal peatland forests into watercourses, threatening water quality. Recognizing a nutrient-reducing practice is insufficient; evaluating costs and benefits is crucial to choose the best options. This study addresses this gap by applying a cost-benefit analysis to continuous cover forestry (CCF) as a strategy to mitigate phosphorus (P) export. The NutSpaFHy model estimated P exports under different management scenarios, comparing rotation forestry (RF) with CCF. Key variables measured included P reduction, net present value, revenue losses, and consumer surplus from recreation. Results showed CCF reduced P exports to 0.022 kg/ha/year, roughly one-third of RF levels on sites suitable for CCF. Recreational benefits, quantified at 6.55€/person/year/kg, were assessed using travel cost and contingent behavior valuation methods. Revenue impacts were evaluated using a size-structured forest optimization model, with CCF costs determined by revenue differentials between optimal management and immediate CCF conversion. High discount rates and mesic sites favor CCF as the optimal solution, indicating no additional costs from an immediate switch on mature stands. Analysis across discount rates (1%, 3%, and 5%) suggests CCF is a viable water protection option, meeting cost-benefit criteria with a benefit-cost ratio of 4.05.

Figshare
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 50%
Peatlands and Wetlands Ecology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Costs and benefits of implementing continuous cover forestry in boreal peatlands · Figshare (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS